AMJAD
PERVAIZ--Petitioner
versus
INSPECTOR
GENERAL RAILWAY POLICE, LAHORE,
and 3 others--Respondents
W.P. No. 27020
of 2011, decided on 8.12.2011.
Constitution of Pakistan,
1973--
----Art. 199--Constitutional
petition--Petitioner was served with show cause-notice on charges of mis-conduct/inefficiency--Maintainability of writ
petition--Validity--It is settled law that writ petition was not maintainable
against charge sheet. [P. 261] A
PLJ
2002 Lah. 1393, rel.
Constitution of Pakistan,
1973--
----Art.
199--Constitutional petition--Embezzlement in case property--Departmental
proceedings under rules--No bar to initiate departmental proceeding in presence
of criminal proceedings--Only charge sheet was issued--Question
of--Departmental proceedings as well as criminal proceedings can run
parallel--Contention--In presence of criminal proceedings departmental
proceeding cannot be initiated against petitioner has no force in eyes of law
as in criminal matter the Court has to look whether any crime has been
committed by culprit or not under Cr.P.C. whereas in
departmental proceedings the competent authority has to look into show-cause
notices had been served to petitioner--Right course for petitioner was to file
reply to charge sheet and raise any question of law or fact before competent
authority--Petition was dismissed. [P.
261] B & C
2001
PLC (CS) 939, rel.
Mr. Abid Iqbal Butt, Advocate for
Petitioner.
M/s. Sarfraz Ahmad Cheema and M. Younis Kiyani, Advocates for
Respondents.
Date of hearing:
8.12.2011.
Order
Through this
single order I would like to dispose of this writ petition as well as Writ
Petition No. 27027/10 as grievance of the petitioners in both these petitions
is the same.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that a criminal case has been registered against the petitioners which is
pending adjudication before the competent Court of jurisdiction; that in the
presence of said criminal proceedings the respondents/authorities have served
the petitioners with charge sheet/show cause notices and initiated inquiry
proceedings against the petitioners; that in the presence of criminal
proceedings the respondents are not justified to initiate departmental
proceedings against the petitioners; that the respondents should wait for the
result of criminal proceedings and if the petitioners have been found guilty
and convicted by the competent Court of jurisdiction then respondents can
initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioners; that the respondents
with malafide intention and with clear intention to
remove the petitioners from service have issued charge sheet/show cause notices
against the petitioners which is not maintainable under the law.
3. On the other hand, learned counsels for the
respondents submitted that the petitioners have made embezzlement in the case
property and have been arrested red handed; that the department has initiated
departmental proceedings against the petitioners under the relevant rules; that
there is no bar on the department to initiate departmental proceedings in the
presence of criminal proceedings; that only charge sheet/show causes notices
were issued to the petitioners and if the petitioners have something in their defence they can place the same before the competent
authority; that the departmental proceedings as well as criminal proceedings
can run parallel.
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the
learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
5. The petitioner Amjad
Pervaiz was served with the charge sheet dated
03.08.2011, whereas, petitioners Shabbir Ahmad and
Muhammad Sajjad were served with show cause notices
on the charges of mis-conduct/inefficiency. It is
settled law that writ petition is not maintainable against charge sheet. Reliance
is placed on case reported as Muhammad Javed Vs. Executive District Officer (Education) Sialkot and 2 others (PLJ 2002 Lahore 1393).
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that in the presence of criminal proceedings departmental
proceeding cannot be initiated against the petitioners has no force in the eyes
of law as in the criminal matter the Court has to look whether any crime has
been committed by the culprit or not under the Criminal Procedure Code whereas
in the departmental proceedings the competent authority has to look into
whether the employee is guilty of mis-conduct or
inefficiency under the relevant rules. No final order against the petitioners
is in the field. Only show cause notices/charge sheet have been served to the
petitioners. The right course for the petitioners is to file reply to the
charge sheet/show cause notices and raise any question of law and/or facts
before the competent authority. Reliance is placed on case reported as Muhammad
Akhtar Sherani and 35
others Vs. The Punjab Textbook Board, Lahore and 4 others (2001 PLC (C.S) 939).
7. Resultantly, this petition has no force and
the same stands dismissed.
(R.A.) Petition dismissed
No comments:
Post a Comment