' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.--- Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 21-7- 2002 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") whereby appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the instantpetition are that petitioner was inducted into service in 1979 as Food Grain Supervisor and was serving in Food Department at Multan Region when he was proceeded against on the charges of shortage of wheat stock at Dunyapur Centre pertaining to the period from 1986-87 and 1987-88. A criminal case under sections 409/420/468/471/109. P.P.C. Read with section 5(2)/47 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was registeredagainst the petitioner, Raja Khizer Ali, Food Inspector and Malik Saeed Ahmed, Assistant Food Controller and were proceeded against by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Multan. At the same time, petitioner was also served with a show-cause notice under section 12(1) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by the Authority on the grounds that he was involved in huge embezzlement of 1535.479 M. Tons and 212.208 M. Tons of wheat and did not possess good reputation. Considering the reply unsatisfactory, he was compulsory retired from service in terms of section 12(1) of the Act on 19-7-1990. The petitioner filed departmental appeal, which was rejected on 13-7-1992. Whereafter the said order was assailed by petitioner in Appeal No,383 of 1992, before the Tribunal, which was dismissed, vide impugned order.
3. We have heard Raja Muhammad Asghar Khan, learned ASC for the petitioner at length and have gone through the record and the proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the provisions of section 12(1) of the Act could not be invoked in this case as the petitioner has put in only 12 years service and not 25 years or more service. Irrespective of above, he was acquitted by the Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction from the allegations on the basis of which show-cause notice under section 12(1) of the Act was issued against him and was consequently retired from service. He vehemently urged that the petitioner has been discriminated inasmuch as on the same allegations Raja Khizer Ali, the then Food Inspector against whom show-cause notice under section 12(1) of the Act was issued, was re-instated in service after his appeal was allowed by the Tribunal. He further contended that the petitioner has been condemned unheard by the Tribunal as neither he nor his Advocate was heard. Neither any full-fledged departmental inquiry as required under the Act was conducted in this case against the petitioner nor he was afforded any opportunity of defence. Thus the impugned judgment suffers from legal defect and is liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the case of Attaullah Sheikh v. WAPDA and others 2001 SCM R 269.
5. The record shows that in compliance of the above mentioned show-cause notice, petitioner fully participated in the proceedings and was afforded an opportunity of personal hearing by the Competent Authority. It was established in inquiry that an amount of Rs,1,07,932.50 became due because of shortage of 1535-479 M. Tons and 212.208 M. Tons of wheat at Dunyapur Centre against petitioner and it was at his behest, the recovery of" the said amount was allowed by the then Food Minister in instalments from him. This factor amply proves his participation in the above mentioned embezzlement. Acquittal in criminal case does not debar Departmental Authorities to take action against petitioner in accordance with the service laws and rules. Both proceedings, however, can go side by side, as their nature is totally different. Criminal proceedings are conducted by the Criminal Court on the allegations levelled in the criminal case whereas departmental proceedings proceed on the charges of misconduct and malversation in accordance with service laws. 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 on criminal charge had no bearing on disciplinary proceedings.
This Court in the case of Inspector-General of Police Punjab, Lahore and others v. Muhammad Tariq 2001 SCM R 789 has held that acquittal in criminal case is no bar for imposing any penalty in departmental proceedings under Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The case of Attaullah Sheikh referred (supra) is on different facts and circumstances and has no bearing with the case of the petitioner, as in that case appellant was suspended on the basis of some criminal charges and the question of payment of pay and allowances for the period of suspension was claimed, which was allowed.
6. Moreover, no substantial question of law of public importance is involved in the case justifying grant of leave to appeal. Thus, finding no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, the same is maintained. Accordingly petition is dismissed and the leave to appeal refused.