IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
 
Civil Petition No.1567-L/2019 
(Against the judgment dated 26.02.2019  
of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore  
passed in Service Appeal No.3866/2016) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The District Police Officer, Mianwali & 2 others 
 
                                                                 …Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
Amir Abdul Majid  
 
 
 
 
 
     ….Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
 
Mr. Zaman Khan Vardag,   
 
 
 
 
 
Additional Advocate General, Punjab 
 
 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
Mr. Kashif Ali Chaudhry, ASC 
 
along with respondent.   
 
 
Date of hearing: 
19.11.2020. 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
  
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- In the wake of his 
nomination as one of the accused in a case of homicide, Amir Abdul 
Majid, respondent, a police constable, was dismissed from service; his 
attempts for reinstatement on the departmental side failed, however, the 
Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, vide judgment dated 26.02.2019 set 
aside the dismissal and re-inducted him in the service. Respondent’s 
acquittal by the trial Court vide judgment dated 30.05.2014 primarily 
appears to have weighed with the Tribunal, being assailed on the ground 
that his success in the criminal contest by itself would not furnish him 
with a ground for reinstatement in a position, meant to enforce and 
uphold the law. The learned Additional Advocate General Punjab has 
referred to the law declared by this Court to argue that respondent’s 
acquittal in the criminal trial, received by the Service Tribunal as a 
 
 
Civil Petition No.1567-L of 2019 
2 
  
 
justification, for his reinstatement in the disciplined force warranted 
interference; he has particularly taken exception to the following 
paragraph in the impugned judgment: 
 
“It is well settled preposition of law that once 
civil servant is acquitted in criminal case, then 
on this very charge he cannot be awarded any 
punishment 
by 
the 
department, 
because 
acquittal is for all future purposes.” 
 
2. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
 
3. 
 
It is by now well settled that a civil servant facing expulsive 
proceedings on departmental side on account of his indictment on 
criminal charge may not save his job in the event of acquittal as the 
department still may have reasons/material, to conscionably consider 
his stay in the service as inexpedient; there are additional reasons to 
disregard his acquittal inasmuch as criminal dispensation of justice 
involving corporeal consequences, comparatively, requires an higher 
standard of proof so as to drive home the charge beyond doubt, an 
exercise to be routed through a procedure stringently adversarial, 
therefore, factuality of the charge notwithstanding, procedural loopholes 
or absence of evidence, sufficient enough to sustain the charge, at times 
occasion in failures essentially to maintain safe administration of 
criminal justice out of abundant caution. Departmental jurisdiction, on 
the other hand, can assess the suitability of a civil servant, confronted 
with a charge through a fact finding method, somewhat inquisitorial in 
nature without heavier procedural riders, otherwise required in criminal 
jurisdiction to eliminate any potential risk of error, therefore, the 
Tribunal 
has 
undoubtedly 
misdirected 
itself 
in 
reinstating 
the 
respondent, considering his acquittal as the sole criterion in isolation to 
the totality of circumstances whereunder he had succeeded to vindicate 
his position. Reference may be made to the cases of Dr. Sohail Hassan 
Khan and others Versus Director General (Research), Livestock and Dairy 
Development Department, Punjab, Lahore and others (2020 SCMR 1708), 
Liaqat Ali versus Government of N.W.F.P. Through Secretary Health, 
Peshawar and others (2011 PLC (CS) 990), Chairman Agricultural 
Development Bank of Pakistan and another Versus Mumtaz Khan (PLD 
2010 SC 695), Government of Pakistan through Secretary m/o Finance and 
others Versus Asif Ali and others (2007 PLC (CS) 271), Superintendent of 
Police, D.I. Khan and others Versus Ihsanullah (2007 SCMR 562), Sami Ullah 
Versus Inspector-General of Police and others (2006 SCMR 554), Ractor 
 
 
Civil Petition No.1567-L of 2019 
3 
  
 
Comsats vs. Ghulam Umar Kazi (2006 SCMR 1894), Executive Engineer 
and others Versus Zahid Sharif (2005 SCMR 824), Khaliq Dad Versus 
Inspector-General of Police and 2 others (2004 SCMR 192), Arif Ghafoor 
Versus Managing Director, H.M.C., Texila and others  (PLD 2002 SC 13) Mir 
Nawaz Khan Versus Federal Government through Secretary, Ministry of 
Finance, Islamabad and 2 others (1996 SCMR 315), Talib Hussain Versus 
Anar Gul Khan and 4 others (1993 SCMR 2177, Mud Izharul Ahsan Qureshi 
Versus M/S P.I.A.C. (1994 SCMR 1608), Muhammad Nazir Versus The 
Superintendent of Police, Toba Tek Singh and others (1990 SCMR 1556) 
Muhammad Tufail Versus Assistant Commissioner/Collector (1989 SCMR 
316), Muhammad Saleem vs. Superintendent of Police, Sialkot and another 
(PLD 1992 SC 369),  Muhammad Ayub Versus The Chairman, Electricity 
Board, WAPDA, Peshawar and another  (PLD 1987 SC 195), The Deputy 
Inspector-General of Police, Lahore and others Versus Anis-ur-Rehman Khan 
(PLD 1985 SC 134) and Begum Shams-un-Nisa Versus Said Akbar Abbasi 
and another (PLD 1982 SC 413). However, while reaffirming the 
declaration of law referred to above, nonetheless, after hearing the 
learned Additional Advocate General and examining the record, having 
regard to the peculiarity of circumstances, we do not feel persuaded to 
non-suit the respondent, present in person, merely on account of flawed 
handling of his plea by the Tribunal.  
4. 
 
It is a common ground that one Ziaullah was done to death 
on 11.12.2011 within the precincts of Police Station City Mianwali; the 
occurrence took place in a lane in front of a house where the respondent 
lived alongside family members that included his brothers as well. 
According to the prosecution, the deceased was intercepted by the 
accused named in the crime report while he went past the lane in front of 
the house; respondent’s name is conspicuously missing in the array of 
the accused nominated in the crime report and it is alleged that he was 
subsequently 
nominated 
through 
a 
supplementary 
statement 
purportedly recorded the same day, a position that is belied by the site 
plans including the one with scale drafted as late as on 16.12.2011, 
irresistibly suggesting that he was taken on board much late in the day. 
Even otherwise the prosecution witnesses have contradicted each other 
on respondent’s dubious nomination. The learned trial Judge took stock 
of inherent discrepancies qua the respondent and held the charge 
against him as preposterous. In the above backdrop, respondent’s 
acquittal from the charge, not only vindicated his claim of being 
subsequently hounded on a trump up charge but also left nothing in the 
 
 
Civil Petition No.1567-L of 2019 
4 
  
 
field to conscionably view in its aftermaths his presence as detrimental or 
non-conducive to good order in the department wherein he otherwise 
boosted an unblemished career. The Court may decline in its discretion 
to interfere with an order, otherwise untenably contoured, nonetheless, 
found to be within the remit of equity and fairness tending to advance 
good, therefore, notwithstanding the error of approach by the Service 
Tribunal, we do not feel inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment 
in order to avoid futility of an avoidable detour. Civil petition fails. Leave 
declined.  
  
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
Lahore, the 
19th November, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/-