AGL 40.21 Increased By ▲ 0.18 (0.45%)
AIRLINK 127.64 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.05%)
BOP 6.67 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.91%)
CNERGY 4.45 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-3.26%)
DCL 8.73 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.68%)
DFML 41.16 Decreased By ▼ -0.42 (-1.01%)
DGKC 86.11 Increased By ▲ 0.32 (0.37%)
FCCL 32.56 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (0.22%)
FFBL 64.38 Increased By ▲ 0.35 (0.55%)
FFL 11.61 Increased By ▲ 1.06 (10.05%)
HUBC 112.46 Increased By ▲ 1.69 (1.53%)
HUMNL 14.81 Decreased By ▼ -0.26 (-1.73%)
KEL 5.04 Increased By ▲ 0.16 (3.28%)
KOSM 7.36 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-1.21%)
MLCF 40.33 Decreased By ▼ -0.19 (-0.47%)
NBP 61.08 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.05%)
OGDC 194.18 Decreased By ▼ -0.69 (-0.35%)
PAEL 26.91 Decreased By ▼ -0.60 (-2.18%)
PIBTL 7.28 Decreased By ▼ -0.53 (-6.79%)
PPL 152.68 Increased By ▲ 0.15 (0.1%)
PRL 26.22 Decreased By ▼ -0.36 (-1.35%)
PTC 16.14 Decreased By ▼ -0.12 (-0.74%)
SEARL 85.70 Increased By ▲ 1.56 (1.85%)
TELE 7.67 Decreased By ▼ -0.29 (-3.64%)
TOMCL 36.47 Decreased By ▼ -0.13 (-0.36%)
TPLP 8.79 Increased By ▲ 0.13 (1.5%)
TREET 16.84 Decreased By ▼ -0.82 (-4.64%)
TRG 62.74 Increased By ▲ 4.12 (7.03%)
UNITY 28.20 Increased By ▲ 1.34 (4.99%)
WTL 1.34 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-2.9%)
BR100 10,086 Increased By 85.5 (0.85%)
BR30 31,170 Increased By 168.1 (0.54%)
KSE100 94,764 Increased By 571.8 (0.61%)
KSE30 29,410 Increased By 209 (0.72%)

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.