1. This appeal by Ghulam Sarwar an ex-Patwari of D. G. Khan, seeks the reversal of his dismissal from service by the order of Collector, D. G. Khan, which was confirmed by the higher Revenue authorities. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant was involved in a criminal case, under section 376/366/380, P. P. C., registered at Police Station, Jampur, as he was alleged to have abducted, on 29-12-1967 Mst. Zahida Khatoon daughter of Zulfiqar Hussain, resident. Of lampur. The appellant was acquitted of the charge by the District Magistrate on 19-6-1969, who held that there was no life in the prosecution case, as the lady was about 21 years of age and stated to have gone with the appellant at her own accord. But the appellant was also proceeded against under sections 13 and 14 of the West Pakistan Con--trol of Goondas Ordinance, 1959, before the District Tribunal, D. G. Khan, who on 13-10-1968, declared him a Goonda. One of the conditions imposed upon the appellant was to furnish security in the sum of Rs. 3,000 with two sureties in the like amount, and further directed to be of good behaviour for a period of three years failing which he had to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the said period. The appellant challenged the aforesaid order in an appeal before the Commissioner, Multan who accepted his appeal to the extent that he reduced the period of good behaviour from three years to one year and upheld the rest of the conditions. In consequence of the orders above, the Collector D. G. Khan, served him with a show-- -cause notice under rule 6(2)(i)(ii) of the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960, as to why a major penalty should not be imposed upon against him. On receipt of his reply dated 2-9-1969 and affording him an opportunity of being heard, the appellant was dismissed from service. His appeal before the Commissioner, Multan Division, was also rejected on 22-6-1970. The Revision Petition before the Board of Revenue, also failed on 16-12-1970.
2. After about five years, the Revision petition filed by the appellant against the order of District Tribunal, D. G. Khan and the Commissioner, Multan Division, under Goondas Act, was accepted by Mr. Justice Aslam Riaz Hussain of the Lahore High Court on 11-3-1975. The Revision petition succeeded for the reason that since all the al--legations against the appellant form part of one of the same transaction there--fore, it could not be said that he was a dangerous person who usually indulged in criminal intimidation or habitually committed adultery with a woman whom he had abducted forcibly, as laid down by section 13 of the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1959. The learned Court also observ--ed that the appellant also appears to have suffered because of this misconduct inasmuch as he was dismissed from service for that incident. Thereafter the appellant appears to have made a fresh approach to the Department for his re-instatement. The request was in the first instance processed by the General Assistant, D. G. Khan on 9-8-1975, who recommended that the decision of the High Court in a criminal case had no hearing on the Depart--mental action. Moreover, the proceedings had already concluded against the present appellant, upto the Board of Revenue level. Thus there was no justification for re-opening the same.
3. His request was accordingly rejected by the Collector, D. G. Khan. His further appeal to the Commis--sioner, Multan Division, was also rejected on 25-11-1975 on the ground that the decision of the High Court related to the prosecution on criminal side and thus determining the criminal liability of the appellant had nothing to do with the dismissal of the appellant. The appellant moved a further petition for review before the Board of Revenue which was also rejected by the Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Lahore, on 15-5-1976 which states that no review lies against an order passed by the Competent Authority on the representation made by a Government Official. He dismissed the Review petition in limine. Ultimately the present appeal was filed before this Tribunal on 14-6-1976. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length. He vehemently argued that he having been dismissed on the basis of his conviction under Goondas Ordinance on the alleged charge of abduction by him of Mst. Zahida K.Hatoon, and the same having been disproved before the Courts of criminal jurisdiction, the basis of his dismissal became ineffective and as such he was clearly entitled to re-instatement in service. He strenuously argued that the Departmental authorities were not justified to deny him the re-instatement. After hearing the counsel for the appellant, we do not feel inclined that he has succeeded in making out a case for re-instatement. In the first instance, his conviction under Goondas Ordinance was not set aside by the High Court on merits, but on the ground that one solitary instance did not justify the findings that be was a dangerous person who usually indulged in criminal intimidation or habitually committed adultery with a woman whom he had abducted forcibly which appeared to be an essential requirement of section 13 of the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1959. There is no finding by the High Court in the judgment in Criminal Revision No. 1086 of 1959, as relied upon by the appellant, that he was not guilty of abduction at all. As regards the acquittal order by the Additional District Magistrate, Multan, it is sufficient to say that the same was not conclusive in favour of the appellant inasmuch as the object of the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings is widely different. The object of disciplinary proceedings is certainly, not to punish the appellant in the criminal sense.
4. We are, therefore, in agreement with the departmental view that the acquittal of the appellant in criminal proceedings did not necessarily entitle him to re-instatement. Even otherwise, we find that after the order of the High Court, dated 11-3-1975, the appellant was required to approach the, Board of Revenue in Review straightaway instead of approaching the Collector D. G. Khan, and thereafter the Commissioner, Multan Division, as it was quite evident that after the rejection of his Revision petition in the first round of litigation by the Board of Revenue, the Collector and the Com- -missioner were not expected to pass the order contrary to orders already passed by the Board of Revenue. Thus the delay occasioned in filing appeal before us is evidently to the disadvantage of the appellant. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no force in this appeal which is dismissed in limine.