' JAVED IQBAL, J---Pursuant to disciplinary action initiated under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 on account of inefficiency and misconduct the petitioner was dismissed from service on 8-5-2000. Being aggrieved a departmental appeal was filed which was rejected on 29- 11-2000 and revision petition met the same fate vide order dated 13-9-2001. The petitioner approached learned Punjab Service Tribunal by means of appeal which has partly been accepted and penalty of dismissal from service has been converted to that of compulsory retirement, hence this petition.
2. Mr. A.G. Tariq Chaudhry, learned Advocate Supreme Court appeared on behalf of petitioner and mainly contended that learned Service Tribunal has failed to appreciate the legal and factual aspects of the controversy in its true perspective which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. It is next contended that after the acquittal of petitioner in criminal case got registered against him no further disciplinary action could have been initiated on the same ground which amounts to double jeopardy which aspect of the matter has been ignored by learned Service Tribunal without any cogent reasoning which caused a serious prejudice against the petitioner. It is next contended that the criminal case got registered vide F.I.R. No,332 at Police Station Civil Lines under sections 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 for the alleged abduction of one Mst. Asifa Naureen could not be proved by the prosecution as no worthy of credence evidence could be led which resulted in acquittal of petitioner by means of order dated 18-5-2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge which should have been kept in view by the department and ignorance whereof amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice, fair play and equity.
3. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of the petitioner in the light of relevant provisions of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 and perused the judgment impugned. The main thrust of the arguments of learned Advocate Supreme Court is that after acquittal in criminal case no disciplinary proceedings could have been initiated which in our considered opinion is a misconception of law. It is well-settled by now that "objects of prosecution on criminal charge and departmental proceedings are entirely different; one relates to the enforcement of criminal liability and the other is concerned with service discipline. Acquittal of criminal charge had no bearing on disciplinary proceedings". Amir Abdullah v. Superintendent of Police (1989 SCM R 333), Deputy Inspector General of Police v. Anis-ur-Rehman Khan (PLD 1985 SC 134), Muhammad Nazir v. Superintendent of Police (1990 SCM R 1556), Nawaz Khan v. Federal Government (1996 SCM R 315), Arif Ghafoor v. Managing Director (PLD 2002 SC 13). The acquittal of petitioner in criminal case would have no substantial bearing on the disciplinary proceedings which culminated into dismissal of the petitioner from service. The acquittal in a criminal case does not constitute a bar for initiation of disciplinary action.
4. The factum of wilful absence being question of fact has been determined at first instance by the Police Department and determination whereof has been upheld by learned Service Tribunal which cannot be B upset in absence of any concrete reasoning which is lacking in this case. "Even otherwise, where no substantial question of law, much less question of law of public importance, had been raised in appeal, finding of Service Tribunal being a finding of fact would not call for any interference by Supreme Court". Muhammad Azim v. Chief Engineer (1991 SCM R 255), Muhammad Binyamin v. WAPDA (1991 SCM R 383), Muhammad Munir Ahmad v. WAPDA (1990 SCM R 907), Munir Ahmad v. Punjab Service Tribunal (1990 SCM R 1005), Muhammad Jaffar Toor v. Superintending Engineer (1989 SCM R 1470).
5. No jurisdictional flaw or legal error could be pointed out in the judgment impugned. The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed and leave refused.