SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J. Through this petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 07.10.2019 passed by the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby the Infra Court Appeal filed by him was dismissed and the order of the learned Single Judge in Chambers was upheld.
2. This petition is hopelessly barred by 552 days and the only ground given for condonation of delay is that instead of filing the present petition within the stipulated period of time; the petitioner had sent an application to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Pakistan and remained waiting for the outcome of the said application. It is a settled principle of law that for condonation of delay, each day's delay has to be explained with proper justification but in the present case the petitioner has not been able to place on record sufficient material for the said purpose. Although on this point alone, the petition is liable to be dismissed but as the petitioner appeared in person, in the interest of justice, we deemed it appropriate to examine the merits of the case as well.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Punjab Police for the post of Hardware and Network Technician in District Sialkot, the petitioner applied and ultimately got selected. He was issued a provisional appointment letter on 08.05.2017. Before he could join the duty, he along with others was proceeded against in a criminal case bearing FIR No. 171/2017 dated 12.05.2017 under sections 324/302/148/149, P.P.C. During the pendency of the criminal trial, the District Police Officer, Sialkot, withdrew the appointment letter vide order dated 14.07.2017.
However, on the basis of compromise the petitioner was subsequently acquitted in the aforesaid criminal case vide judgment dated 30.05.2018. After his acquittal he approached the department for allowing him to join the duty but when he could not get any reply from the department, he filed Writ Petition No. 227927/2018 before the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore, which was ultimately disposed of on the request of the petitioner and a direction was issued to the department to decide the pending representation of the petitioner within a period of thirty days. Pursuant to the direction of the High Court, the competent authority decided petitioner's representation and rejected the same vide order dated 14.01.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore by filing Writ Petition No. 9415/2019, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in Chambers vide order dated 17.06.2019. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed Infra Court Appeal No. 58254/2019 but it also met the same fate vide impugned order. Hence, this petition seeking leave to appeal.
4. The petitioner, who appeared in person, submitted that the impugned order is based upon conjectures and surmises and the learned Division Bench did not take into consideration that before registration of criminal case against him, the requisite verification and medical fitness had been completed, therefore, the appointment letter could not have been withdrawn. Contends that, the learned High Court has wrongly presumed that the provisional offer of appointment was subject to compliance of certain conditions prescribed in the appointment letter because he had applied for the post of Hardware and Network Technician, which was not a uniform post. Lastly contends that as he was acquitted in the criminal case, therefore, the provisional appointment letter may be restored.
5. On the other hand, learned Law Officer defended the impugned order by contending that the petitioner was acquitted on the basis of compromise and not on merits. Contends that the provisional offer for appointment was subject to compliance of conditions prescribed in the letter itself, one of which was character verification, and as the petitioner was involved in the criminal case, therefore, keeping in view his character, the competent authority rightly withdrew letter of appointment.
6. We have heard petitioner in person as also learned Law Officer at some length and have perused, the available record.
There is no denial to this fact that the petitioner was provisionally offered job for the post of Hardware and Network Technician on contract basis subject to fulfilling certain conditions, which have been duly mentioned in the provisional appointment letter dated 08.05.2017. One of the said conditions was that "the (appointment shall be subject to verification of character/antecedents/educational certificates and in case anything adverse is reported, the contract appointment shall be liable to be terminated." The bare reading of the language used in this condition i.e. clause 'xix' of the provisional appointment letter shows that the competent authority had reserved its right to withdraw the appointment letter/terminate the petitioner from service in case anything adverse about his character comes on the record even at belated stage.
It is not denied that a criminal case under sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. was registered against the petitioner, which ultimately ended in compromise. The petitioner was not acquitted on merits and it was only the compromise between the parties, which was made basis for his acquittal. The Police is a disciplined force, whose only job is to maintain law and order situation in the society irrespective of nature of job and to apprehend the criminals, who violate the law of the land.
Keeping in view the role of the Police in a society, only the people of highest moral standard with clean record should be inducted in the department. Every department has the right to make rules and induct people according to, its own standards and requirements. It is admitted position that although the petitioner was provisionally offered the job but he had not joined the same. When in the very appointment letter, it was clearly mentioned that the appointment of the petitioner shall be subject to verification of his character, which as discussed above does not require any explanation, hence, there is nothing on record which could favour the petitioner. So far as the argument of the petitioner that before registration of criminal case against him, the requisite verification cum medical fitness had been completed is concerned, despite our asking he could not show us anything from the record in support of his argument. As far as the argument of the petitioner that as he had applied for a post which was not a uniform post, therefore, complying with the conditions prescribed in the appointment letter was not necessary is concerned, suffice it is to state that we in these proceedings cannot create a distinction between the classes of servants in the Police department, rather the job offered to the petitioner was more sensitive keeping in view the nature of job and modern techniques used to facilitate investigation in police department. We have noticed that the petitioner had already assailed the jurisdiction of the High Court by filing successive Constitutional petitions, which resulted into dismissal of the same and as such the petitioner's case is hit by the principle of res judicata and any subsequent proceeding initiated at the instance of the petitioner is squarely hit by the law laid down by this Court in the cases of Secretary Local Government, Election Rural Development, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v.
Muhammad Tariq Khan (2021 SCMR 1433) and Khurshid Soap and Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2020 SC 641).
7. For what has been discussed above, this, petition having no merit is accordingly dismissed and leave for appeal is refused.