FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 4.11.1999 passed by the Punjab Service, Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No. 2278 of 1998.
2. The petitioner was a Food Supervisor in the Food Department, Punjab. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 29.1.1979 for misconduct under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The petitioner submitted his reply thereto. Another show-cause notice dated 6.1.1980 was issued by the Rationing Controller. Multan stating therein that the petitioner was responsible for the loss of Rs.3,95,255.50 on account of misappropriation of 3220 bags of wheat. After holding the departmental inquiry, final show-cause notice and personal hearing the Deputy Director Food/respondent No 2, dismissed the petitioner from service and also imposed penalty of recovery of Rs.8,41,047.83 by order dated 23.2.1981. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal which was dismissed by order dated 7.7.1982. The Civil Appeal No 628 of 1998 filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by this Court on 1.7.1991. However, the Government was found entitled to recover a sum of Rs.3,95,255.50 from the petitioner.
3. The petitioner was also subjected to criminal prosecution simultaneously in case FIR No. 43, dated 18.10.1980 under Sections 409/468/471, PPC read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption , Act, 1947 registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Multan. By judgment dated 3.3.1997 the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Punjab acquitted the petitioner of the criminal offences.
The Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 1999 filed by the State was dismissed, by order dated 8.3.1999, by the Lahore High Court, on the ground of being time-barred. Therefore, the petitioner again moved the departmental authorities for his reinstatement in service with back benefits. He also filed Service Appeal No. 2278 of 1998 which was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 4.11.1999 of the Tribunal. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since the petitioner had been acquitted by the Criminal Court, therefore, the Tribunal should not have declined to exercise its jurisdiction merely.
On the ground that this Court had already dismissed his appeal for reinstatement in service.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. We are of the view that the judgment dated 1.7.1991 of this Court dismissing Civil Appeal No 628 of 1988 of the petitioner for his reinstatement in service had attained finality. In the presence of the earlier judgment of this Court, the petitioner could not be permitted to re-open past and closed transaction and to re-agitate the same, matter on the ground that he had been acquitted of the criminal charges. The departmental penalty had been imposed independently of and without reference to the criminal proceedings.
The Tribunal rightly refrained from interfering in the matter as it was not empowered to go behind and over-reach the final judgment of this Court. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
6. We do not find any merit in this petition for leave to appeal which is refused and the petition is dismissed accordingly.