UM AR ATA BANDIAL, J. File petitioner was alleged in case FIR No. 3/12 dated 03.01.2012 to be in possession of contraband drugs thereby committing offence under section 9(c), CNSA and possessing illicit arms, committing offence under section 13/20/65 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965.
Whilst the petitioner was in jail, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, inquiry was conducted behind his back and his written defence of being innocent was rejected. On the basis that he had tarnished the image of the police force, he was dismissed from service on 31.03.2012.
The departmental appeal was dismissed for being time barred on 10.05.2016. The same result followed before the learned Tribunal through its impugned judgment dated 01.07.2016.
Subsequently, the petitioner's appeal against his conviction succeeded before the learned High Court on 20.04.2017.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sole basis for the dismissal of the petitioner from service is his alleged involvement in a criminal case under the CNSA. That involvement has been rejected by the learned Appellate Court through its judgment dated 20.04.2017 which was pronounced after the learned Tribunal rejected the petitioner's service appeal. The impugned judgment is claimed to be based on an allegation which has subsequently been rejected by the learned High Court. New facts have come into the field. Such facts were not considered by any of the learned fora below. In the circumstances, the petitioner has a right to be heard by the respondents in respect of his impugned dismissal from service.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General opposes the plea on the ground of limitation occurring before the departmental authorities. However, he does not dispute that both the inquiry proceedings as well as the impugned order of dismissal dated 02.04.2012 was passed against the petitioner ex-parte.
4. We note that the petitioner having been arrested on 04.12.2013 was not in a position to pursue his departmental remedies. Be that as it may, the fundamental basis on which the impugned action is passed against the petitioner has seized to exist. It is settled law that the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings is not dependent upon the outcome of criminal proceedings. However, the acquittal of the petitioner by the learned High Court on 20.04.2017 is a subsequent development that ought to be considered by the departmental authorities whilst considering disciplinary action against the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed. However, the respondent departmental authorities shall be at liberty to commence fresh disciplinary proceedings on the basis of the record and by the grant of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law.