AIRLINK 194.83 Decreased By ▼ -3.14 (-1.59%)
BOP 9.81 Decreased By ▼ -0.23 (-2.29%)
CNERGY 7.36 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (0.96%)
FCCL 38.58 Increased By ▲ 2.58 (7.17%)
FFL 16.45 Decreased By ▼ -0.46 (-2.72%)
FLYNG 27.54 Increased By ▲ 2.50 (9.98%)
HUBC 131.75 Decreased By ▼ -2.28 (-1.7%)
HUMNL 13.86 Decreased By ▼ -0.28 (-1.98%)
KEL 4.66 Decreased By ▼ -0.12 (-2.51%)
KOSM 6.66 Decreased By ▼ -0.28 (-4.03%)
MLCF 45.39 Increased By ▲ 0.41 (0.91%)
OGDC 213.99 Decreased By ▼ -4.24 (-1.94%)
PACE 6.86 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-1.15%)
PAEL 40.06 Decreased By ▼ -1.36 (-3.28%)
PIAHCLA 16.79 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-0.42%)
PIBTL 8.32 Decreased By ▼ -0.14 (-1.65%)
POWER 9.43 Increased By ▲ 0.04 (0.43%)
PPL 182.19 Decreased By ▼ -3.74 (-2.01%)
PRL 41.83 Increased By ▲ 0.56 (1.36%)
PTC 24.56 Decreased By ▼ -0.21 (-0.85%)
SEARL 102.53 Decreased By ▼ -2.12 (-2.03%)
SILK 1.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.99%)
SSGC 39.44 Decreased By ▼ -1.47 (-3.59%)
SYM 17.33 Decreased By ▼ -0.72 (-3.99%)
TELE 8.76 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-1.68%)
TPLP 12.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-0.7%)
TRG 65.40 Decreased By ▼ -1.20 (-1.8%)
WAVESAPP 11.11 Decreased By ▼ -0.19 (-1.68%)
WTL 1.70 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-4.49%)
YOUW 3.94 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-1.5%)
BR100 11,988 Decreased By -121.3 (-1%)
BR30 36,198 Decreased By -400.2 (-1.09%)
KSE100 113,443 Decreased By -1598.8 (-1.39%)
KSE30 35,635 Decreased By -564.3 (-1.56%)

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court held that a criminal acquittal does not automatically influence the results of departmental proceedings provided that all legal and procedural requirements have been duly complied with.

The judgment authored by Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi said that there is no cavil to the preposition that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings operate independently and are not mutually exclusive. Departmental proceedings are governed by distinct laws, procedures, and evidentiary standards, which differ from those in criminal cases.

A two-judge bench comprising Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi held that against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal Islamabad (Karachi Bench).

Mumtazuddin Shaikh, a petitioner, was appointed as a clerk on 01.01.1990 in the General Post Office (GPO), Hyderabad. He was suspended vide order dated 08.09.2006 on the grounds of inefficiency, misconduct, and corruption. A show-cause notice dated 27.02.2007 pertaining to misappropriation of Rs565,730 was served on the petitioner, in response to which, petitioner vehemently denied the allegations.

Being dissatisfied with the explanation, an inquiry was ordered. Based on inquiry report, major penalty of dismissal from service under Removal from Government Service Ordinance (RSO), 2000, on the charges of misappropriation of government money in military pension payment of Rs820,876 was imposed upon him vide order dated 20.03.2007.

The petitioner challenged the order by preferring departmental appeal on 02.04.2007, which was rejected vide order dated 10.08.2007. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached FST by filing Service Appeal No 1372(R)(CS) of 2009, which was dismissed in limine on 16.06.2010.

After dismissal from service, the department referred the matter to the FIA, Hyderabad for lodging of FIR against the petitioner which was accordingly registered under sections 409, 468, and 471 PPC read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The criminal case pursuant to said FIR was tried by the Special Court of Anti-Corruption (Central), Hyderabad and after a full-fledged trial the petitioner was acquitted of the charges vide judgment dated 16.12.2019.

Upon acquittal, the petitioner preferred three departmental appeals on 23.01.2020, 21.02.2020 and 03.03.2020, respectively, for reinstatement into service with all back benefits, which remained un-responded, therefore, petitioner approached Federal Service Tribunal (Karachi Bench) by filing Appeal No75(K)(CS) 2020, which was also dismissed vide impugned judgment. He; therefore, approached the Supreme Court.

The court noted that the petitioner during service misappropriated a huge amount and after conducting an inquiry and following all legal and procedural requirements he was dismissed from service.

Record further reveals that based on the inquiry report, available evidence, and self-admission of the petitioner that specified amount was misappropriated, department directed the petitioner to credit the misappropriated amount, in lieu thereof, petitioner deposited Rs228,206 under head of unclassified receipt.

However, petitioner failed to deposit remaining amount therefore the department was bound under the rules to report the matter to the Law Enforcement agency for the purpose of lodging FIR which was accordingly registered.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024

Comments

Comments are closed.