HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J. - Facts leading to this writ petition are that the petitioner while working as S.D.O, in the. Communication and Works Department, Government of the Punjab was suspended through order dated 22.6.2008 on the plea that a child in Abadi Manowal, Lahore was died due to the negligence of the Officers/officials of the area. An F.I.R. No. 500/2008 was also registered against the officials on 19.6.2008, the petitioner bailed out and then submitted a representation before. Respondent No. 1 explaining his position that the sewerage line was never maintained by the Communication and Works Department as the responsibility to maintain the building of Police Training School was the only, responsibility of the C&W Department, whereas the 1 maintenance of said sewerage line was the responsibility of 1 Town Municipal Administration and other local Authorities. However, the explanation of the petitioner before respondent No. 1 could not result into exoneration and he filed this writ I petition with two prayers:
(i) Suspension order dated 22.6.2008 be declared illegal and be set aside.
(ii) Respondents be directed to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of XEN in the forthcoming D.P.C, scheduled on 3.7.2008 independent of the suspension order.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that tire petitioner has been discharged from the criminal \ case through order dated 4.9.2008 by the learned Magistrate Section 30, Lahore and as such the basis of the suspension order when could not remain in field, no justification rested with the departmental Authorities to continue, with the suspension order. Further submits that the petitioner was otherwise eligible for promotion to the rank of XEN but due to the impugned suspension order the petitioner's lawful right of promotion is being denied.
3. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab, Lahore under instructions from the departmental representative submits that the petitioner's s promotion case was considered during the pendency of writ petition. However, his case if Deferred on account of suspension of the petitioner and the moment the petitioner's suspension order is recalled, his case shall be reconsidered strictly in accordance with law. Further submits that the criminal liability as well as the service matter can proceed simultaneously and there is no bar in that respect so the contention of the petitioner, that the basis of suspension < order if washed away from the field, the departmental proceedings cannot be processed is without force.
4. Arguments heard: available record perused.
5. First of all I have- to see the contents of the impugned suspension order which is reproduced as follows:- "No. SODII(G&W)1-2/20Q2: Consequent upon their arrest by the local police due to negligence in the case of death of a child in Abad! Manowal, Lahore on 19.6.2008, the following officers/officials are hereby placed under suspension with immediate effect under Rule 7.5 of the Civil Service Rules (Punjab) Vol. I;-
(1) Mr. Muhammad Sharif, Executive Engineer PBD 3rd, Lahore,
(2) Mr. Liaquat Hussain, Sub-Divisional Officer, PBSD, 9th, Lahore.
(3) Mr. Wahaj Siddique, Sub-Engineer O/O PBSD 9th, Lahore.
'SlKANDAR SULTAN RAJA SECRETARY C&W/COMPETENT AUTHORITY."
6. Admittedly the suspension order was passed on the basis of Rule 7.5 of the Civil Service, Rule (Punjab) Vol. I and it shall be advantageous to reproduce the same which is as follows:- "A Government servant committed to prison either for debts or}on criminal charge should be considered as under suspension from the date of his arrest and should be allowed only those payments as are laid down in Rule 7.2 until the decision of his case by the Trial Court, unless, however, on being released; on bail during the course of trial, the authority concerned reinstates him keeping in view the nature of offence or the grounds for his commitment to prison."
7. It is also admitted that the petitioner is discharged from the criminal case through order dated 4.9.2008 passed by the learned Magistrate Section 30, Lahore.
8. When all these undisputed facts are put in juxtaposition to the suspension order, no other conclusion can be drawn that the reasons, which were made basis of the suspension order, remained no more in the field. Such like controversy was resolved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in cases reported as Muhammad Sardar Khan v-. Senior Member, Board of Revenue (1985 SCM R 1483), Dr. Muhammad Islam v. Government of N.-W.F.P. (1998 SCM R .1993) and Shams-ud- Din Khawaja v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2003 SC 187), wherein it is held that "if the departmental proceedings were initiated on the basis of criminal charge which was not subsequently proved by the competent Court of law and resulted in acquittal, the order of compulsory retirement passed by the department cannot hold the field."
9, In the present case, the departmental representative who is present in Court (after checking the service record of the petitioner) confirms that no other allegation is available against the petitioner except the registration of criminal case and wherein the petitioner has already been discharged through an order of a competent Court of law. To my mind .Now the matter is very simple i.e. The basis of petitioner's suspension has been washed away through discharge order dated 4.9.2008 by a competent Court of law, hence continuation of suspension order particularly when it was passed on the strength of Rule 7.5 of the Civil Service Rule (Punjab) VoI. I shall be ah exercise in futile rather shall aggravate the petitioner's humiliation amongst his colleagues and society which otherwise is against the spirit of law, thus I have no other option except to allow this writ petition, resultantly the impugned suspension order is set aside.
10. It is to be noticed that the departmental representative categorically stated that the petitioner's promotion case was only deferred and not superseded and he is entitled for reconsideration after recall of suspension order.
As the suspension order is set aside, thus the department is directed to place the petitioner's promotion case before the departmental promotion committee within one month and the D.P.C, shall consider the promotion case of the petitioner fairly, justly and strictly in accordance with law under intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.