1. SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.--It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that at the relevant time he was serving as Chowkidar in KPT and it was alleged that he was caught red-handed stealing 44 pieces of Ball Bearings on 7-12-1981 as such FIR was registered at Police Station TPK on the same day on the charge of theft and he was taken in custody. Subsequently challan was presented in the Court resulting in registration of Criminal Case No, 584/82 in the Court of A.C.M. XVI, Karachi South and in that case he was acquitted under Section 249A, Cr.P.C. vide order dated 31-7-1983 mainly on the ground that prosecution had failed to produce witnesses and in the period of two years had produced only one witness. In the meantime in connection with departmental proceedings show- cause notice was issued on 27-7-1982 and Enquiry Officer was appointed who conducted enquiry, examined witnesses and in his report recommended dismissal for the reason that charge was proved. Subsequently Board of Trustees passed a resolution and approved dismissal of the petitioner.
2. ' Grievance of the petitioner is that since he has been acquitted in criminal case hence on the same charge he cannot be punished in the departmental proceedings. According to him word used in the charge-sheet is accused and the same word was used in the criminal case hence simultaneously two trials were held against the petitioner which were unfair and illegal. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in reply of the charge-sheet he has stated specifically that let the matter be decided by the Court of law and the decision coming from Court of law, whatever it be, would be binding on him. In spite of that departmental proceedings were continued and after petitioner was acquitted on the same charge he is punished in the departmental enquiry.
3. It is noteworthy that perusal of order passed under Section 249-A Cr.P.C. which is available on the record clearly shows that the same is not passed on merits but is passed mainly for the reason that in spite of the fact that two years had expired from 7 witnesses proposed to be produced by the prosecution only one witness was produced when all the 7 witnesses were employees of KPT.
4. Even if order of acquittal had been on merits, then too there is no bar in the law not to allow the departmental proceedings to continue on the charge which otherwise provides the ground for initiating departmental proceedings.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended before us that it is open to the employer to prosecute an employee as well as proceed against him departmentally on the same charge. In support of the proposition he has cited the case of Muhammad Shamim v. M/s. Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd., Karachi and another 1975 SCMR 46. In this context reference can also be made to the cases of Muhammad Sarwar v. Karachi Transport Corporation 1985 PLC 554 and Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal Khan 1961 PLC 412 (Supreme Court of India). We are, therefore, of the view that no exception can be taken to the action impugned in this petition to the extent that the employer is allowed to initiate prosecution as well as departmental enquiry against an employee on the same ground.
6. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that at the relevant time salary of the petitioner was more than Rs,1,100 as such order of dismissal in respect of him could not be passed by Board of Trustees without approval of the Federal Government.
7. On the other hand Mr.Zahiruddin Khan has submitted that u/s 23 of the Karachi Port Trust Act, Chairman of the Board is empowered to pass such orders in respect of employee whose maximum salary does not exceed five hundred rupees and in the instant case at the relevant time salary of the petitioner was Rs,612/75 p.m. Although petitioner has claimed that his salary was Rs,1,100 or more but he has not produced any evidence in this context and had made an application in the Court under section 151 C.P.C. in which he had prayed for production of salary record. Salary statement has been produced and is available in the record which shows that pay of the petitioner at the relevant time was Rs,525 excluding allowances.
8. In the circumstances stated above it appears that enquiry proceedings were held by competent person and orders were passed by competent authorities in accordance with procedure which is laid down under the Act and Rules framed therein. Against the order of dismissal an appeal was filed before the respondent No,1 under Rule 12 of KPT Officers and Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, which has been disposed of by the competent authority and the appeal was dismissed and such intimation was given to the petitioner.
9. ' It is contended on behalf of the respondent that KPT is a statutory corporation and if employee of such corporation is dismissed or removed from service then on the basis of doctrine of master and servant it would be open to him to file a suit for damages against wrongful dismissal which would be appropriate remedy as such he cannot file a constitutional Petition invoking special jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution.
10. In support of the proposition reliance has been placed on the cases of R.T.H. Janjua v. National Shipping Corporation PLD 1974 Supreme Court 146.
11. The Principal Cadet Coilege, Kohat and another v. Muhammad Shoab Qureshi PLD 1984 Supreme Court 170 and Anwar Hussain v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and others PLD 1984 Supreme Court 194.
12. In the circumstances it appears that remedy open to the petitioner is that he can file suit for damages for wrongful dismissal if he claims that dismissal is wrongful. This petition also suffers from laches for the reason that order was passed on 7-11-1983 and this petition was filed in September, 1986. Satisfactory explanation for the delay has not been offered. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that in the absence of plausible explanation such long delay should not be condoned and in support of this proposition reliance is placed by him on the cases of Fazlur Quader Chowdhary and others v. Muhammad Abdul Hague PLD 1963 Supreme Court 486 at 542 and Pakistan Post Office v. Settlement Commissioner and others 1987 SCMR 1119.
13. For the facts and reasons mentioned above we find no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.