MUHAMMAD YAR WALLANA, MEMBER-I.--Precise facts of the case as gleaned out from the memorandum of appeal and available record are that appellant Shahid Mehmood, Ex-Sub- Inspector of Punjab Police bearing No, B/399 faced disciplinary proceedings on the charge of judicial conviction in case F.I.R. No, 297, dated 23.06.2004 u/s. 457/342, PPC lodged at PS Baghdad- ul-Jadid, District Bahawalpur, which conviction was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide order dated 10.12.2014 in Criminal Appeal No, 402/2012. The operative part of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court reads as under:-- "In this view of the matter while restoring the judgment of the learned Trial Court and that of the learned Appellate Court qua the convictions on respondents No, 1 and 2, we reduce the sentences of imprisonment passed against the said respondents to those already undergone by them. The sentences of fine passed against the respondents shall stand remitted. The bail bonds and sureties of respondents No, 1 and 2 shall stand discharged."
The competent authority i,e, District Police. Officer, Bahawalpur through show-cause notice bearing No, 113/PA dated 14.03.2015 charged him under Rule 3 of Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 and required his reply while dispensing with the requirement of regular departmental inquiry and on receipt of his reply to the show-cause notice found him guilty under Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 read with Rule 16.2(2) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 and consequently dismissed him from service vide impugned order bearing No, 504-07/PA, dated 31.03.2015. His departmental appeal as well as revision petition also met the same fate before the appellate and revisional authorities and resultantly the appellant invoked jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 4 of Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 inter alia on the ground of non-conducting of regular inquiry, failure to adopt requisite procedure for departmental proceedings entailing major penalty of dismissal from service and violation of established law on the subject.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant maintained that despite judicial conviction upheld by the Hon'ble apex Court, the departmental authorities were under legal obligation to have applied Rule 6 of the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 which course having not been adopted, the major penalty could not be imposed upon the appellant. He was of the view that the General Police Proceedings did require holding of proper inquiry, proper charge against the civil servant and pre-requisites of obtaining of reply and conducting of proper and regular inquiry factual controversy and that mere conviction of an accused in criminal case could not result in dismissal of the civil servant by the competent authority. In this regard he relied upon PLD 1994 SC 222 2003 SCMR 681 2004 SCMR 316 2008 PSC 942, 2009 PLC (CS) 19, 2009 PSC 339, 2011 SCMR 1618, 2014 SCMR 1263, PLJ 2016 Tr.C.
Service 94 and PLJ 2016 Tr.C. Service 102. He extended his arguments by dilating upon the nature of criminal liability and the disciplinary liability upon a civil servant and by placing his reliance upon PLD 1985 SC 134, 1993 SCMR 2177, 2001 SCMR 2018, PLD 2002 SC 13, 2016 SCMR 943 and 2017 SCMR 21 maintained that criminal conviction cannot substitute the prerequisites of regular inquiry in departmental proceedings, which having not been adopted in the present case, all the impugned orders are nullity in the eyes of law. He further attacked the impugned orders on the touchstone of not being well-reasoned and speaking orders and referred to the view of the Hon'ble apex Court in a reported case 2013 SCMR 572. It was further argued that the co-accused of the incident namely Abdul Sattar, SI had admitted in his reply before the departmental authorities that he had summoned the appellant and that he too was equally liable and had been punished by the Trial Court but the departmental authorities did not proceed against him under the relevant provisions of law. Thus, he maintained that as held by the Hon'ble apex Court in 2001 SCMR 114 and 2006 SCMR 1155, the appellant deserves same treatment. He also referred to view of this Tribunal and view of the undersigned in other judgments particularly Muhammad Majid v. RPO Bahawalpur & another bearing service appeal No, 1843/2016 decided vide judgment dated 25.11.2016 and Zaheer Ahmad v.
EDO (Education), Sheikhupura & another bearing service appeal No, 3303/2014 decided vide judgment dated 13.04.2017 and extended his arguments that the judge of his cause has to follow his earlier decisions on same point of law and in this regard he referred to the view of the Hon'ble apex Court in PLD 1959 SC 9, 1999 YLR 1340 and 2004 MLD 1815. He summed up his arguments by referring to the decision reported as 2017 SCMR 265 and submitted that the reply of the respondents is very evasive, hence this Court has to take judicial notice of all these facts and that on the basis thereof the appeal is liable to be accepted.
3. The learned District Attorney on the other hand submitted that in present case conviction of the present appellant passed by the learned Trial Court was upheld by the Hon'ble apex Court and that the objections taken up in present service appeal were never agitated earlier at the departmental level proceedings. He relied upon NLR 2001 SCR 108(SC) (sic) 2003 SCMR 338, 2004 SCMR 540, 2010 SCMR 868, 2011 SCMR 484, 2011 SCMR 534 and Rule 16.2(2) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934.
4. I have considered arguments advanced at the bar and by the able assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned District Attorney have examined entire record very deeply.
5. The major chunk of arguments and grounds maintained in this service appeal revolve around non-holding of regular inquiry while initiating disciplinary proceedings and that mere judicial conviction was of no use for the purpose. The case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the applicable law in present case needs due consideration in all respects.
There is absolutely no second opinion to the established law of this land evolved by the Hon'ble superior Courts particularly by the Hon'ble apex Court that where a factual controversy is involved in disciplinary proceedings initiated under any disciplinary law applicable to a civil servant, holding of a .regular inquiry particularly for imposing major punishment becomes a sine qua non but while referring to case-law on the subject, the learned counsel for the appellant appears to have lost sight of a special provision in the Police Rules, 1934 as contained under Rule 16.2(2) and also the powers exercised by the competent authority of dispensing with the regular inquiry While for resolving a .factual controversy the holding of a regular departmental inquiry would be a legal necessity and not mere a formality yet the departmental authority could exercise powers vested in it under Rule 6(3)(i) of Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 and could decide that a regular inquiry in the matter before it was not necessary but for exercise of such powers it shall follow the mandate of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-rule 3(i) of Rule 6 of the Rules ibid and have to inform the accused of the action proposed to be taken in that regard as well as the grounds of such action and would give him reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such an action. A bare perusal of show- cause notice bearing No, 113/PA, dated 14.03.2015 would show that the competent authority had given reasons of availability of sufficient material on record for proving of the allegations against the present appellant and on the basis thereof had formed the opinion that departmental inquiry was not necessary in this case. This exercise of powers by the competent authority could be challenged at the touchstone of the established law yet in present case it is reply of the show- cause notice which has mattered a lot as while the charge was confined to the extent of his judicial conviction upheld by the Hon'ble apex Court in criminal appeal bearing No, 402/2012 decided on 10.12.2014 arising from registration of criminal case F.I.R. No, 297, dated 23.06.2004 u/s. 457/342, PPC lodged at PS Baghdad-ul-Jadid, he admitted this conviction. So, when a civil servant admitted the charge and sufficient material existed on record, there was absolutely no necessity to hold a regular inquiry in the face of admission of charge. The very purpose of holding of a regular inquiry is to determine a factual controversy and to resolve a disputed fact, when there is no dispute with regard to a fact or charge of such a fact which leads to forming of an offence under disciplinary law the exercise of holding of regular inquiry would be superfluous and meaningless.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant while stressing upon the need of a regular inquiry in the present case had argued to such a length that for establishing guilty of misconduct arising under a criminal activity it was to be independently proved in the disciplinary proceedings by adducing of such evidence, which was necessary to prove the charge in the criminal case. I am afraid that such a course would be necessary in order to prove particular allegation of judicial conviction. I would however agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the criminal charge as well as disciplinary proceedings are two separate and distinct proceedings which have to stand at their own strength of evidence and there can be absolutely no other judicial opinion that where a factual controversy is involved in disciplinary proceedings an independent and requisites evidence thereof would be placed on record to prove such charge and any opinion expressed by a judicial authority could not be transported for the purposes of determination of such factual controversy in the disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant. But there exists a subtle difference between the two aforesaid proceedings that while even on the basis of judicial conviction the departmental proceedings have to be initiated and processed under the relevant provisions of law in present case Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 the departmental authority would consider reply of the show-cause notice and if there is no contest of the charge or there is admission of such a fact, which is the basis of a charge against the civil servant, the authority could determine the allegations or the charge against the civil servant and could proceed to award him appropriate punishment without conducting a regular inquiry.
7. In present case, the appellant had admitted that his judicial conviction stood upheld by the Hon'ble apex Court and even his criminal review petition bearing No, 04 of 2015 was also dismissed by the Hon'ble apex Court and when the departmental authorities had applied relevant provisions of law particularly Rule 6 of Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 while proceeding against him and the show-cause notice has contained reasons for non-holding of regular inquiry, no procedural violation of any material requirement of law is found by this Tribunal in the departmental proceedings.
8. So far as the reply of the respondents alleged to be evasive or the impugned orders being non- speaking or without reasoning, in the wake of admission of material fact and charge of his judicial conviction by the present appellant, the impugned orders convey reasoning and the grounds of punishment which cannot be considered mechanical and non-speaking orders. The view of this Tribunal in Muhammad Majid v. RPO Bahawalpur & another bearing service appeal No, 1843/2016 decided vide judgment dated 25.11.2016 and Zaheer Ahmad v. EDO (Education) Sheikhupura & another bearing service appeal No, 3303/2014 decided vide judgment dated 13.04.2017 with respect to legal necessity of holding of regular inquiry in case of conviction as well is quite distinguishable as in present case it was the charge of judicial conviction upheld by the Hon'ble apex Court and admission of the same charge by the civil servant (appellant), hence on the score of difference of facts and admission of the appellant, the view of this Tribunal expressed in the said service appeals is not applicable in present case, hence reliance of the learned counsel for the appellant on the decision of said appeals and view of the Hon'ble superior Courts reported as PLD 1959 SC 9, 1999 YLR 1340 and 2004 MLD 1815 is, with due respect inapplicable in this case and the learned counsel for the appellant has misconceived the same. However, there is no gainsaying that earlier view on same facts and applicable law is to be very honestly, followed by every judicial forum and this Tribunal would not be an exception to that but for quite distinguishable reasons recorded above there was no requirement of holding of a regular inquiry in the present case.
9. For the reasons recorded in above paragraphs, the reliance of the learned counsel for the appellant on the case-laws referred above is misconceived and with due respect inapplicable on the facts of present case as even if any other civil servant was convicted but could not be proceeded under the disciplinary proceedings it would not make out a case of innocence of the appellant particularly when such other civil servant stood retired before decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in a criminal trial.
10.For what has been discussed above, the instant service appeal has no merits which are accordingly dismissed.