Mudassir Khalid Abbasi, J.: Through this single judgment, I intend to dispose of W.P. No.5031 1/2017, W.P.
No.50325/2017, W.P. No.50329/ 2017, W.P. No.50315 of 2017 and W.P. No.50466 of 2017 alongwith instant petition.
2. Petitioner, in W.P. No.57381 of 2017 has called in question, circular No.SE-IV/7317-70/II dated 26.06.2014 and petitioners in other connected writ petitions have sought direction against respondents for issuance of appointment letters.
3. Precisely the facts of the case are that petitioners in all writ petitions applied for the post of head constables in response to an advertisement dated 05.12.2016. According to the stance taken by the petitioners they have qualified requisite tests and examinations, however, their appointments were withheld vide circular No.SE- IV/7317- 70/II dated 26.06.2014 issued by respondent No.2 to all heads of Police in the Punjab, whereby candidates who were involved in the criminal cases (either under trial or acquitted on multiple grounds) were directed not to be appointed. Detail of criminal cases registered against the petitioners in all writ petitions and fate of those cases is given as under:- Writ Petition No. and title of the caseDetail of case Status of case 57381/2017 Ali Hamza Vs. Govt. of Punjab, etc.FIR No.125/13 dated 17.09.2013 U/S 341/337-L2, 34 PPC in Police Station Rayya Khas, DistrictAcquitted from the charge.
Narowal.
50325/2017 Awais Iqbal Vs. Govt. of , Punjab, etc.FIR No.425/15 dated 03.12.2015 U/S 354/452/448/511/148/1 49 PPC in Police Station Satghera District Okara.Petitioner found innocent vide case diary No.1 1. Challan of the case has been prepared and submitted to Court.
Case is under trial and next date of hearing is 05.09.2017 50466/2017 FIR No.908/16 dated Found innocent. Muhammad Ahmad Vs. Govt. of Punjab, etc.07.11.2016 U/S 149, 302, 148 PPC in Police Station Havaili Lakha District Okara. 50315/2017 Muhammad Ramzan Vs. I.G. Punjab, etc.FIR No.212/12 dated 24.03.2012 under Section 395/397/324/353/412 PPC read with 7-A TA PPC & FIR No.235/12 dated 29.06.2012, 13/20/65 AO both of PS City Renala District Okara.Petitioner was found guilty . Challan submitted, however , he was acquitted from learned Trial Court on 03.02.2014. 50329/2017 Muhammad Aslam Vs. I.G. Police, etc.FIR No.180/16 dated 28.05.2016 u/s 440 PPC & FIR No.189/16 dated 06.06.2016 u/s 506-B PPC both of PS Mandi Ahmed Abad District Okara.Petitioner found guilty in FIR No.189/16. Challan of the case was submitted. Case is under trial. Next date of hearing is 12.09.2017. FIR No.180/16 was found false and cancellation report has been prepared and submitted in the Court and agreed by learned Trial Court on 27.07.2016. 50311/2017 Aftab Rana Vs. I.G.
Police, etc.FIR No.81 1/15 dated 18.11.2015 u/s 452/354/448/51 1/337A 1/337- F1/148/ 149 PPCPetitioner found guilty in FIR No.81 1/15. Interim bail is confirmed.
P.S. Haveli Lakha District Okara.
FIR No.908/16 u/s 302/148/149 PPC PS Haveli LakhaCase is under trial.
Next date of hearing is 12.09.2017.
Petitioner found involved in case FIR No.908/16 u/s 302/148/149 PPC PS Haveli Lakha. Case is under investigation.
Petitioners being aggrieved by afore-referred circular have filed instant writ petitions.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that circular dated 26.06.2014 has been issued in violation of constitutional provisions and is against the principles of natural justice. States that since some of the petitioners have been acquitted from the charge leveled against them in criminal cases whereas some of them are under trial, therefore, restriction on appointment could not be imposed. Further states that in terms of Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution, petitioners are to be treated in accordance with law without any discrimination. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners have relied on "Muhammad Aslam v. Sabir Hussain and others" (2009 SCMR 985), "Asghar Ali v. Mansoor Muzaffar Ali and 3 others"
(2012 PLC (C.S.) 502), "Iftaaikhar Hussain and others v. The State" (2004 SCMR 1185), "Director General, Intelligence Bureau, Islamabad v. Muhammad Javed and others" (2012 SCMR 165), "Chairman Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and another v. Mumtaz Khan" (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 695), "Rahimullah Jan v. Kashif and another" (PLD 2008 Supreme Court 298), "Dr. Muhammad Islam v.
Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary , Food, Agriculture, Livestock and Coop erative Department, Peshawar and 2 others " (1998 SCMR 1993 ).
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General while opposing the afore-referred contentions has argued that the petitioners have misstated and have sworn false affidavits concealing the fact that criminal cases were registered against them, irrespective of their acquittal or innocence. He has further argued that acquittal/innocence of the petitioners is distinguished from the fact that they have concealed the registration of cases. Moreover , the case law which has been relied by the other side relates to the acquittal of a person and do not address the question of concealment of facts.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. Primarily, thrust of the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioners is that mere involvement in a criminal case would not create any impediment upon the appointment of the petitioners as head constables particularly when they have been acquitted after facing trial or otherwise exonerated from the charge.
8. I have carefully gone through the case law referred above. No doubt, ratio of these judgments is that exoneration/acquittal of an employee shall be considered to have committed no offence because the competent Court had exonerated them from the acquisition of criminal charge. In other words double presumption of innocence is attached to a person acquitted and registration of case/facing the trial does not disentitle a contender to get employment in the Government department.
9. Proposition of law before this Court in this particular case is somewhat altogether distinguished. A policy decision was taken by the respondents regarding the exclusion of those candidates who were found involved in criminal cases either under trial or acquitted on multiple grounds. This has been challenged through the instant constitutional petitions.It is asserted by the of ficial respondents that in fact, petitioners have concealed the fact of involvement in criminal cases, they have deposed falsely in an undertaking, incorporated in the application form that they were neither involved in any criminal case nor they were challenged. Before advert ing to the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to reproduce the impugned notification which reads as under:- "The competent authority has decided in principal that all those candidates who, during character verification, have been found involved in criminal cases (either under trial or acquitted on multiple grounds) shall not be appointed in Police Department as constable.
2. Please ensure compliance of this direction and any deviation thereof shall be viewed seriously . "
10. Admittedly , petitioners applied for the posts of constables and perusal of record shows that there is a specific column/undertaking in the application form signed by the petitioners which reads as under:- {{URDU TEXT}}
11. Relevant police rule with regard to the verification of character of fresh recruitment is also reproduced hereunder:- 12.18. Recruits - Verification of character of
(1) The character and suitability for enrolment of every recruit shall be ascertained by a reference to the lambardar of the village or ward member of the town of which the recruit is a resident. A search slip shall also be sent to the Finger Print Bureau in order to establish his freedom or otherwise from conviction. Such lambardar or ward member shall, if the recruit is of good character , furnish a certificate to that effect which shall be verified and attested by the Sub Inspector in-charge of the local police station. The Sub Inspector shall also complete the information required by form 12.18(1).
Admittedly, criminal cases were registered against the petitioners. Although most of them have been acquitted and some of them are still facing the trial. However, at this stage, it would be relevant to draw a distinction between acquittal from criminal case, concealment of facts and deposing falsely at the time of application for getting employment in disciplinary force.
12. Hon'ble apex Court was confronted with somewhat similar proposition in Civil Petition No.1668-L and 1852-L of 2012 wherein vide order dated 18.02.2013 appeals were dismissed with the following observations:- "Admittedly when the respondent/petitioner Jabir Ali gave his application to the department for recruitment into police service, three FIRs were pending against him and hence he falsely stated in such application that he was not involved in any criminal case. As police official should be honest and law abiding himself and subject to disciple. Where, at the inception of his career. Respondent/petitioner had made a false statement for the purpose of recruitment into the force, he cannot be expected to perform his duties honestly and diligently. Hence, he was correctly dismissed from service by the departmental authorities."
13. In another case titled "Abdul Manan v. Provincial Police Officer and 2 others" (2017 PLC (C.S.) 862), same view has been taken in the following terms:- "Appointment of constable in police department---Petitioner candidate was declined selection on the ground that he was found involved in a criminal case-- Candidate had not mentioned in the application form that he was involved in a criminal case, which was concealment of fact---Misstatement on the part of candidate before entering into service had shaken the credibility of his character and disentitled him from any relief---No illegality was pointed out in the impugned order---Intra court appeal was dismissed in limine in circumstances."
14. Afore-referred notification under challenge is a policy decision taken by the Government for the purposes of recruitment of constables in the police. By now it is a settled principle of law that such decisions are not interfered by the Courts under the constitutional jurisdiction unless found arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the public policy. Reliance is placed on "Dossani Travels Pvt. Ltd and others v. Messrs Travels Shop (Pvt.) Ltd. and others" (PLD 2014 SC 1), "Messrs Al-Raham Travels and Tours (Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. Ministry of Religious Affairs, Hajj, Zakat and Ushr through Secretary and others" (2011 SCMR 1621) and "Muhammad Nadeem Arif and others v. Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and others" (2010 PLC (CS) 924).
15. So far as this particular case is concerne d, it is to be seen that what is the rationale behind the said policy .
Obviously , the purpose is to select those persons who were not involved in any case of criminal nature. Besides that a candidate making false undertakin g is not entitled to get employment in a disciplinary force. This is being substantiated by the fact that the conduct of an employee has direct bearing with the service discipline. Even acquittal in criminal cases cannot be made basis for exoneration in case of violation of departmental discipline or commission of any misconduct reason being that in number of judgments it has been laid down by the apex Court that criminal proceedings and departmental actions are distinguished because in departmental proceedings desirability of a civil servant to continue in service is under examination, whereas the object of criminal proceedings is to determine and enforce the criminal liability of any accused. Nature of evidence and the standards of proof are different in the two proceedings. The purpose of analyzing the criminal prosecution with departmental proceedings is to draw a line between the acquittal in criminal case and eligibility to get employment in a disciplinary force. Therefore, it becomes immaterial that some of the petitioners have been acquitted/ exonerated from criminal charges. In this particular case, involvement in a criminal case has rightly been made one of the factors for not getting employment in a law enforcing agency. Departments like police are fully equipped with the prerogative to lay down such criteria for recruitment. Reliance is placed on "Talib Hussain v. Anar Gul Khan and 4 others" (1993 SCMR 2177) and "Muhammad Iqbal v. District Police Officer, Sahiwal and another"(2011 SCMR 534).
16. Another important aspect of this case is that grant of relief under constitutional jurisdic tion is discretionary in nature. It is settled principle of law that petitioners must come with clean hands before the Court whereas in the present case ex-facie there is mis-statement and concealment of facts on part of petitioners, before entering into service which obviously has shaken their credibility . Reliance is placed on "West Pakistan Tanks Terminal (Pvt.)
Ltd. v . Collector (Appraisement)" (2007 SCMR 1318 ) relevant portion of which is reproduced herein below:- "Furthermore in law, the petitioner seeking leave to appeal against the High Court order is not entitled to the discretionary and equitable relief from this Court in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction as he has not approached this Court or the fora prescribed under the Constitution and the law with clean hands. One who seeks equity must have equities in his favour. In the present case we are firmly of the opinion that the equities do not lean in favour of the petitioner therefore in our considered .view the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference by this Court."
Reliance is also placed on "Messrs Syed Bhais (Pvt.) Ltd. through Director v. Government of Punjab through Secretary Local Government and 3 others" (PLD 2012 Lahore 52) and "Muhammad Maqsood Sabir Ansari v.
District Returning Officer Kasur and others" (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 28) .
For the foregoing reasons, these petitions do not succeed and are dismissed. No order as to cost.