JUSTICE (RETD.) MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, CHAIRMAN -- This service appeal is.directed against the order dated 2.12.2006 passed by Superintendent of Police, Hqrs, Rawalpindi whereby the appellant was dismissed from service on the ground of registration of case F.I.R. No. 242, dated 29.10.2006 under Sections 382/34, 411/419, P.P.C, against him and the appeal and revision filed by the appellant against the penalty of dismissal was also dismissed by the City Police Officer, Rawalpindi and the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore vide orders dated 8.8:2007 and 22.3.2008 respectively.
2. lt is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant was acquitted from the criminal case mentioned above by the order of the learned Magistrate Section 30, Islamabad vide order dated 15.9.2007, therefore there was no justification for imposing the major penalty of dismissal from service as it is established principle of law that mere registration of F.I.R, is neither a proof of guilt nor innocence of the accused unless the accused is tried, and convicted by a Court after completion of trial. His further contention, is that as the acquittal carries the presumption of innocence, therefore the imposition of-penalty without waiting for the decision of the criminal case was not justified in the eye of law. Reliance has been placed on the case titled Muhammad Afzal v.
Muhammad Altaf Hussain (1986 SCM R 1736) and Muhammad Aslam v. The State and another'{PLD 2006 SC 465), Mir Nawaz Khan v. Federal Government through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Islamabad, etc. (PLJ 1996 SC 356), Malik Azharul Haq v. Director of Food; Punjab, Lahore and another (1991 SCM R 209) and the case titled Rashid Mehmood v. Additional Inspector-General of Police and 2 others (2002 SCM R 57) (Supreme Court of Pakistan).
3. On the other hand, learned Assistant District Attorney has opposed this appeal on the ground that the appellant being a member of disciplinary force is not supposed to act like criminals and he should be vigilant, therefore he has been rightly dealt with by the competent authority and his appeal and revision were correctly dismissed by the City Police Officer and Inspector General of Police, Punjab.
4. I have considered the arguments and haye also gone through the record.
5. The competent authority while imposing the major penalty firstly acted in haste and passed the punishment without waiting for the final decision of the trial, secondly appellate as well as revisional authorities also did not- wait for the decision of the Criminal Court and have maintained the penalty just .under the impression that registration of F.I.R, was a sufficient evidence to impose the same, ln the cited judgment i.e. 1986 SGMR 1736, hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan after fully examining the effect of mere registration of F.I.R., came to the conclusion that mere registration of F.I.R, was not to go any further than to mere registration of a case and also held that judicial verdict thereon of discharge and acquittal would re-act more strong against correctness of the contents of the F.I.R. Even otherwise all the impugned orders are Violative of the known principle that an accused is presumed innocent unless proved guilty by a Court of competent jurisdiction, ln this case at the time of passing. of order by the competent authority as well as by the appellate authority the appellant was still in the process of trial of the criminal case whereas his revisional authority dismissed the revision on a technical ground. I am therefore satisfied. that firstly neither the competent authority nor the appellate authority was right in imposing the major penalty of dismissal just on the basis of registration of F.I.R, nor after the acquittal of the appellant from the Court of competent jurisdiction th,ere was any justification to maintain the punishment of major penalty. Further as held in the case of Rashid Mehmood v. Additional Inspector General of Police and 2 others (2002 SGMR 57) (Supreme Court of Pakistan) and the case titled Malik Azharul Haq v.'
Director of Food, Punjab, Lahore and another (1991 SCM R 209), the civil servant could not be punished on account of charge of misconduct i.e. registration of criminal case unless regular inquiry having been conducted by the departmental authority to hold him guilty of misconduct, ln the present case too, the appellant was fired by the competent authority without holding regular inquiry and merely on the basis of registration of criminal case and without waiting for the outcome of trial. Further the judgment of acquittal passed by the competent Court does not indicate that appellant was acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt, therefore on this score also there was no question of imposing any penalty on him. Resultantly this appeal is allowed, all the impugned orders are set aside and the appellant is restored to his service. However,' since registration of F.I.P. and the commencement of the criminal trial against the appellant are admitted facts, therefore I am not inclined to accept the prayer of the appellant for the grant of back benefits which he voluntarily agreed to give up at the time of hearing of the appeal in the presence of his Counsel and the period of absence if any shall be considered as leave without pay.