Through this judgment, an appeal filed by Muhammad Zafran, Ex-Warder No. 5220 against orders dated 8.10.2010, 9.2.2011 and 10.5.2012 whereby the appellant was ordered to be dismissed from service is being decided.
2. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant hearad and available record perused.
3. Annex (A) available in the file is basic order, which was passed by the Superintendent of Central Jail, Rawalpindi on 19.6.2007 on the basis of which the Superintendent of Central Jail, Rawalpindi by invoking the provisions of Punjab Removal from service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, the appellant was dismissed from service on an allegation that he was involved in case FIR No. 411 dated 07.09.2006 under Section 9-C, P.S Sadar Baruni, Rawalpindi for smuggling of narcotic (Charas 1000 grams) between the night 07/08 of September 2006 from Tower No. 5 and the same was recovered by SG Warder Mola Bukhsh and SG Warder Ulfat Ali. Previously this basic order was assailed by filing an appeal Bearing No. 1968/2008 before this Tribunal and vide order dated 31.12.2008 the then Hon'ble Member-V allowed the appeal in the following fashion:-- "Under the circumstances, the impugned orders passed by the authorities do not sustain. The instant appeal is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside. Consequently, the appellant is reinstated in service. The case is remanded to the competent authority with the direction to decide the same afresh after holding a regular inquiry into the matter and provide the appellant an opportunity of producing defence in accordance with law. The status of intervening period shall be decided by the competent authority at the time of finalization of the inquiry. "
4. During post remand proceedings, DIG, Prisons Rawalpindi Region, Rawalpindi switched over the proceedings from Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 to th4 provisions of PEEDA Act, 2006 and vide order dated 08.10.201( awarded major penalty to the appellant and dismissed him from service with immediate effect. Against this order Le: dated 08.10.2010 departmental appeal was filed, which was ultimately rejected by the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, Lahore on 09.02.2011. Both the above said orders were challenged by filing revision petition, which were not entertained as the appeal of the appellant has already been dismissed by AIG (Security and Discipline ) for the office of Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, Lahore vide missive No. 3160 date 10.05.2012.
5._ It is admitted fact that initial basic proceedings were take up by the Superintendent of Central Jail, ;Rawalpindi under Section of the Punjab Removal from service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 whereby major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon this appellant as he was found involved in criminal case FIR No. 411 date 07.09.2006 under Section 9-C CNSA Police Station Saddar Beruni Rawalpindi. After post remand proceedings, by the order of the Tribunal dated 31.12.2008 DIG Prisons Rawalpindi Region Rawalpindi switched over to the provision 3 of the Section 4 of the PEEDA Act,2006 and by invoking the provisions of PEEDA Act, 2006 appellant was ordered to be dismissed from service with immediate effect. Switching over from one act to another is not appreciate by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled District & Sessions Judges vs Muhammad Nawaz reported in 2003 SCM R 1720. Prima facie, the respondents/competent authority committed mistake by switching over from the one provision of law to another provision law. It is important to high light that after the remand of the case the order of this Tribunal, Ch. Azmat Hayat, Superintendent, Sub Junction Chakwal conducted regular inquiry. His report is Annex (L). The report reveals that- I.O. Recorded the statements of Muhammad Anwar Assistant Jail, Mola. Bakhsh, Warden and Ulfat Hussain, Warden, Report is silent that when statements of witnesses were being recorded, appellant was present there and he was asked to cross examine the said witnesses. In absence of this, it cannot be said to the I.O. Carried out full-fledge regular inquiry. This fact escaped from the notice of the respondents thus they have committed material illegality. It is also important to note that; report under Section 17 Cr.P.C. Was sent to the competent Court of law for trial of the present appellant /accused in criminal case FIR No. 411 date d 07.09.2006 un Section 9-C CNSA, 1997, P.S Saddar Beruni, Rawalpindi as ultimately vide judgment dated 04.09.2007, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi acquitted the accused Muhammad Zafar from the criminal liability. Nothing is on the record to show that the police department/prosecution further assailed the judgment of the learned Additional sessions judge mentioned above and the same has been set aside and appellant has been held guilty. In absence of all that, I feel no hesitation to say that the order passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge mentioned above has attained finality.
It is also settled principal of law that once civil servant is acquitted after the trial by the competent Court of law, department would be wrong in refusing to reinstate him (2003-TD (Service) 339 is referred). While rejecting the appeal and revision, the appellate as well as revisional authority did not keep in their mind the fact of acquittal of the appellant from the criminal liability hence, they have committed illegality.
6. In view of what has been discussed above. The appeal is allowed/accepted, impugned orders are set aside and the appellant is reinstated in service with all back benefits. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.