' A case under sections 420/468/ 471/467/109, P.P.C. Read section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was registered at Police Station ACE Region, Rawalpindi, vide F.I.R. No.20 dated 19-12-2000, amongst others, against the petitioner. It appears that disc'plinary proceedings had been commenced against the petitioner by the department. On 17-2-2001, he was served with a notice that an inquiry has been conducted against him and he has been found guilty of the charges of misconduct, production of bogus orders of SV teacher and bogus letter for his promotion as S.S.T. A copy of the inquiry report was sent to him and he was called upon to show cause as to why he may not be dismissed from service.
2. On 27-2-2001, he filed Writ Petition No.761 of 2001 in this Court seeking a declaration that the said notice be declared to be illegal and without lawful authority. The writ petition came up for hearing before the Court on 1-3-2001 when the learned counsel informed that another Writ Petition No.174 of 2001 is also pending. It was accordingly ordered that the said writ petition be listed before the 'Bench hearing the said other matter. Thereafter, the case came up before this Court on 11-9-2003 when the learned counsel stated that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was sent up for trial and he has been acquitted by the Court and the verdict has not been challenged. It was further stated that the petitioner had been suspended only on the ground of pendency of the said criminal case and despite his acquittal, the re- instatement has not been proceeded with. Writ petition was accordingly disposed of with the observation that the learned A.A.-G. To establish contact with the respondent-Department and in case the facts stated by the learned counsel are verified, they be directed to proceed with the matter of his reinstatement in accordance with the Rules and law on the subject.
3. On 13-10-2003, the present criminal Original was filed complaining that the said order of the Court has not been complied with. Notices were issued. A reply was filed in which the respondents stated that the learned A.A.-G. Had not conveyed the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.767 of 2001. It was observed by this Court that by now the respondents are aware of the said order, they should comply with the same. On 28-1-2004, it was reported by the respondents that the records are with some other offices at Lahore, they were directed to pass the requisite orders and to hand over a copy to the petitioner. On 20-2-2004, the learned A.A.-G. Placed on record a copy of the order passed by the Departmental Appellate Authority whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the order dismissing him from service on 27-2-2001 was dismissed. Learned A.A.- G. Then read out the said order dated 11-9-2003 passed in Writ Petition No.767 of 2001 to urge that this Court had made the said order subject to verification of the facts stated before it by the learned counsel. The petitioner was accordingly called upon to explain.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that in fact the petitioner was dismissed from service on 27-2-2001 and he had filed an appeal which was dismissed. However, he has argued with reference to a case of Attaullah Sheikh v. WAPDA and others 2001 PLC (C.S.) 316, that since the petitioner has been acquitted by the criminal Court, the respondents are bound to reinstate him.
Learned A.A.-G. On the other hand, contends that the criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are different and since the departmental proceedings have not been challenged in the manner prescribed by law, therefore, mere acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal case may not be helpful to him. He further points out that the petitioner in the aforesaid case was suspended only as a result of criminal proceedings and he was not proceeded against departmentally, thereafter he was accordingly reinstated as a result of his acquittal from the criminal case.
5. I have already stated above the relevant facts of this case. In fact, what happened was that upon certain charges a case was registered against the petitioner and some others and they were tried by a learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Rawalpindi. He was, of course, acquitted in the said case vide judgment dated 19-3-2003. I may note here that in this very judgment, the learned Special Judge, who in all probability was not made aware of the departmental proceedings, has advised the Department that the petitioner ought to have been proceeded against under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules and that he has not committed any criminal offence. This is precisely what happened. The petitioner was proceeded against departmentally and some inquiry was conducted against him. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to him and then he was dismissed from service. He filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the Departmental Appellate Authority. It has not been stated before me that whether any appeal before the Service Tribunal has been filed or not. In the said case of Attaullah being relied upon by the learned counsel, as per observations made by their Lordship, the petitioner was not proceeded against or penalized by the Department, but on the other hand, he was suspended because of registration of criminal case against him and was in fact reinstated upon his acquittal. The dispute was, as to whether he was entitled to full back-benefits or only the subsistence allowance. On the other hand, it has been the consistent view of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are entirely different. One relates to the enforcement of criminal liability while the other is concerned with the service discipline. Consequently, it has been repeatedly held that the criminal proceedings have no bearing on the disciplinary proceedings. Reference may be made to the cases of Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary Finance, Excise and Taxation Department Peshawar and 2 others 2003 SCMR 338; Inspector- General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and others v. Muhammad Tariq 2001 SCMR 789; Talib Hussain v.
Anar Gul Khan and 4 others 1993 SCMR 2177; Muhammad Ayub v. The Chairman, Electricity Board, WAPDA, Peshawar PLD 1987 SC 195 and Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore and others v.
Anis-ur-Rehman Khan PLD 1985 SC 134.
6. Respectfully following the consistent view of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, I do no find any Contempt being made out against the respondents. The criminal Original is accordingly dismissed.