This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is directed against the order dated 02.08.2017 passed by Respondent No, 2, whereby the petitioner was not considered for appointment as a Constable on account of registration of a criminal case against him.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner pursuant to a publication made in the newspaper applied for the post of Constable; that the petitioner was declared successful in the final interview during the process of recruitment of Constables; that name of the petitioner reflected at Serial No, 47 of the list of successful candidates for appointment of constables for the year 2017; that the petitioner was not considered for the post because of registration of a criminal case against him i,e, case FIR No, 304 dated 23.06.2014, under Sections 324, 148 and 149 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 ("P.P.C") at Police Station Saddar Burewala. District Vehari.
3. The learned counsel, for the petitioner contends that petitioner was honourably acquitted in the aforementioned case and copy of the order of acquittal was presented to the concerned officials which was not considered; that pursuant .to order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No, 10017 of 2017 on 12.07.2017 Respondent No, 2 has decided the representation of the petitioner and only on account of registration of criminal case, dismissed the representation vide order dated 12.08.2017; that according to Punjab Civil Servant (Appointment &. Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 ("Rules"), the applicant by providing requisite character certificate was qualified to be appointed for the post. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the case of Zeba Shahnaz v. Secretary Higher Education Deportment Punjab, Lahore and another 12016 PLC (C.S) 83] and an un-reported case of Faisal Rafiq v. I.G. Punjab etc. (W.P. No, 22153/2014)
4. Conversely, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab by referring to the report and para- wise comments submits that Respondent No, 2 on account of registration of criminal case against the petitioner was not entitled to be appointed for the post in question; that the order impugned in this petition was passed in accordance with law.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner was acquitted in the aforementioned criminal case. The order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court dated 25.11.2014 is available on the record, the decision has attained finality. There is nothing on the record that it A was challenged any further. Merely on the basis of accusation against the petitioner about his involvement in a criminal case, he cannot be declared as a man of bad character, particularly, when he has been acquitted in the case and the allegations were not proved. Similar relief was granted in an identical case of Faisal Rafiq v. I.G.
Punjab etc. (W.P. No, 22153/2014).
7. Under Rule 21-A(2) of the Rules, the word "satisfaction of the appointing authority" cannot empower the authority to refuse appointment on a baseless ground.
For the foregoing reason, this constitutional petition is .allowed, the impugned order dated 02.08.2017 passed by Respondent No, 2 is set-aside being illegal and without lawful authority. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner for the post of Constable, if he otherwise qualifies.