2026 S C M R 843

 2026 S C M R 843

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, JJ

GHULAM MURTAZA ---Petitioner

Versus

DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER, GUJRAT and others ---Respondents

Civil Petition No. 4757 of 2024, decided on 23rd October, 2025.

(Against the order dated 16.05.2024 passed by the Punjab Service

Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No.4144 of 2023).

(a) Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975---

----Rr.3 & 4---Civil service---Dismissal from service---Departmental

and criminal proceedings---Distinction---Exception to the general

rule---Case where departmental action was founded solely on the

registration or pendency of a criminal case / FIR---Acquittal in

criminal case---Effect---Departmental charges would fall to the

ground---Briefly, the petitioner, who was a Police Constable (BPS-07),

was nominated in a FIR registered under sections 302, 311, 147 and

148 P.P.C., whereupon departmental proceedings were initiated

against him under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline)

Rules, 1975, leading to his dismissal from service---Upon preferring

appeal, he was provisionally reinstated with directions for a de novo

inquiry, during which period he was acquitted in the criminal case,

yet upon conclusion of the de novo inquiry he was again dismissed

from service, with his departmental appeal, revision, and

subsequent appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal being

dismissed, culminating in the filing of the present civil petition

before the Supreme Court, raising the legal issue whether a major

penalty of dismissal could lawfully be sustained where

departmental action was founded solely on the employee s

involvement in a criminal case, notwithstanding his acquittal

therein, and where no independent departmental misconduct was

examined or established? ---Held: It had been a settled law that

where departmental proceedings rested on independent and probe-

able evidence of misconduct, an acquittal in the criminal case did

not absolve the employee, and both proceedings could lawfully be

run concurrently---However, where the departmental action was

founded solely on the registration or pendency of an FIR, without

any distinct charge of misconduct, the employee s subsequent

acquittal extinguished that foundation, rendering any ensuing

penalty legally untenable and constitutionally infirm---Impugned

judgment was set aside as well as the order of dismissal of the

petitioner and as a result he was re-instated into service---Petition

was converted into appeal and allowed, in circumstances.

(b) Civil service Dismissal from service---Departmental and criminal proceedings---

Distinction---Acquittal in criminal case---Effect---Departmental

disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings, though sometimes

arising out of the same set of facts, operate indistinct legal domains

and are governed by different standards of proof---The disciplinary

inquiry is founded on the preponderance of probability, aimed at

preserving the integrity and efficiency of public service, whereas a

criminal trial proceeds on the stricter standard of proof beyond

reasonable doubt, intended to determine penalliability---Consequently,

the pendency or outcome of one does not automatically affect the

other, and both may lawfully proceed concurrently.

Mumtaz Uddin Shaikh v. Chief Postmaster, GPO, Hyderabad and

others 2024 SCMR 1675; Muhammad Iqbal v. Regional Police Officer,

Sahiwal and another 2023 PLC (C.S.) 267; Muhammad Nawaz Khan v.

Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and others 2023 PLC (C.S.)

884; Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development,

Government of Punjab, Lahore and another v. Ahmad Yar Khan 2010

SCMR 861; The Director General, Intelligence Bureau Government of

Pakistan and others v. Babar Ali Solangi 2025 SCMR 353; Ghulam

Murtaza Sheikh and another v. The Chief Minister, Sindh and others

2024 SCMR 1757; Faraz Naveed v. District Police Officer Gujrat and

another 2022 SCMR 1770; Senior Superintendent of Police (Operations)

and others v. Shahid Nazir 2022 SCMR 327 and Shahid Masood Malik v.

Habib Bank Ltd. and another 2007 PLC (C.S.) 125 rel.

(c) Civil service---

----Dismissal from service---Departmental and criminal proceedings---

Distinct legal domains---Principle---Exception---Acquittal in the

criminal case wipes out the very basis of the departmental action---

Rationale---Scope---Where the sole allegation in the departmental

proceedings is that the civil servant has been involved in, or is facing,

a criminal case, and no independent and probe-able act of misconduct

is alleged, the acquittal of the civil servant in the criminal case

removes the very substratum of the departmental charge---The

disciplinary machinery cannot stand on its own in such circumstances

because there exists no stand-alone allegation that the department can

independently inquire into or establish through departmental

evidence---The charge of involvement in a criminal case is, by its very

nature, incapable of departmental proof, it belongs exclusively to the

criminal forum---Once the criminal court has adjudged the civil

servant not guilty on the same accusation, the departmental authority

is left with nothing to determine; the entire charge falls to the ground.

Muhammad Iqbal v. Regional Police Officer, Sahiwal and another

2022 SCMR 1520 rel.

Ch. Munir Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.

Sanaullah Zahid, A.A.G., Punjab for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 23rd October, 2025. ORDER

SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, J.---The brief facts of the case are that

the Petitioner, serving as a Police Constable (BPS-07), was implicated in

a criminal case bearing FIR No. 722/2021 dated 08.01.2021, registered

under Sections 302, 311, 147 and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860,

at Police Station Civil Lines, Gujrat. Subsequently, independent

departmental proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner in

addition to the pending criminal case under Punjab Police (Efficiency

and Discipline) Rules, 1975 ( Rules ). The allegations levelled against

the Petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings were that:

He while posted at P.P Jatria Sadar Lalamusa, failed to perform his

official duty in an appropriate manner. As per Special Report

vide No. 1210-5A, dated 09.11.2021 submitted by SHO Police

Station Civil Lines, Gujrat, the delinquent official has been found

involved in a case FIR No. 722/21, dated 08.11.2021 under

sections 302/311/148/149, P.P.C. Police Station Civil Lines, Gujrat.

Being a public servant his involvement in a criminal case

amounts to height of inefficiency and gross misconduct on his

part and warrants strict departmental action against him under

the provisions of the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975.

Without conducting a proper inquiry, the Inquiry Officer, through

report dated 18.11.2021, merely referred to the Petitioner s

involvement in the criminal case and recommended serious

departmental action. Consequently, the Petitioner was dismissed from

service vide order dated 13.12.2021. The Petitioner preferred an

appeal against his dismissal, wherein he was provisionally reinstated

with a direction to the department to conduct a de novo inquiry vide

order dated 25.04.2022. Meanwhile, the Petitioner was acquitted in the

criminal case on 26.04.2022.

2. In the de novo inquiry, identical allegations were served on the

Petitioner on 19.05.2022. He appeared before the Inquiry Officer and

informed him of his acquittal in the criminal case. Nonetheless, while

acknowledging the acquittal, the Inquiry Officer concluded that the

Petitioner s mere involvement in a criminal case warranted

departmental action. The report remained silent on the separate

allegation of failure to perform duty in an appropriate manner.

Relying on this report, the competent authority dismissed the

Petitioner from service on 16.06.2022. His departmental appeal and

revision were subsequently dismissed on 06.04.2023 and 21.08.2023,

respectively. The Service Tribunal also dismissed his appeal on

16.05.2024, leading to the present Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the allegation

of involvement in the criminal case stood disproved, while the charge

of improper performance of duty was neither discussed by the Inquiry

Officer nor supported by any evidence. Hence, the imposition of a

major penalty solely on the basis of the Petitioner s nomination in an

FIR was unwarranted and without lawful justification. Conversely, the

learned Additional Advocate General ( A.A.G. ) argued that criminal and departmental proceedings are distinct and independent, and the

Petitioner s dismissal based on a duly conducted inquiry and upheld

by the appellate fora was lawful and sustainable.

4. The charge sheet levelled two allegations against the Petitioner: (i)

failure to perform duty in an appropriate manner, and (ii)

involvement in a criminal case. Two inquiries were held, yet both

reports - dated 18.11.2021 and 26.05.2022 - neither addressed nor

examined the alleged dereliction of duty. Instead, they focused solely

on the Petitioner s implication in the criminal case and, on that basis

alone, recommended departmental action. Thus, in effect, the only

charge pursued against the Petitioner was his involvement in the

criminal case - of which he had already been acquitted prior to the

initiation of the de novo inquiry.

5. We have heard the learned counsel and examined the record of

the case. It is an admitted position that the Petitioner stood acquitted

in the criminal case vide judgment dated 26.04.2022. The order of

acquittal shows that the Petitioner was extended the benefit of doubt

and acquitted on merits.

6. We consider it necessary to reiterate the settled principle that

departmental disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings,

though sometimes arising out of the same set of facts, operate in

distinct legal domains

1 and are governed by different standards of

proof. The disciplinary inquiry is founded on the preponderance of

probability, aimed at preserving the integrity and efficiency of public

service, whereas a criminal trial proceeds on the stricter standard of

proof beyond reasonable doubt, intended to determine penal liability.

Consequently, the pendency or outcome of one does not automatically

affect the other, and both may lawfully proceed concurrently.2

7. However, this general rule admits of an important exception.

Where the sole allegation in the departmental proceedings is that the

civil servant has been involved in, or is facing, a criminal case - and no

independent and probeable act of misconduct is alleged - the acquittal

of the civil servant in the criminal case removes the very substratum

of the departmental charge.3 The disciplinary machinery cannot stand

on its own in such circumstances because there exists no stand-alone

allegation that the department can independently inquire into or

establish through departmental evidence. The charge of involvement

in a criminal case is, by its very nature, incapable of departmental

proof - it belongs exclusively to the criminal forum. Once the criminal

court has adjudged the civil servant not guilty on the same accusation,

the departmental authority is left with nothing to determine; the

entire charge falls to the ground.

8. Any further attempt to proceed would not only be redundant but

would also transgress the boundaries of fairness and legality. It would

offend the broader constitutional guarantee of due process and fair

trial under Article 10A, which requires that no one be condemned

without credible evidence, impartial inquiry, and a meaningful opportunity of defence. A departmental action that, despite acquittal,

persists in holding the civil servant liable for mere involvement in a

criminal case is founded not on evidence but on conjecture and

subjective notions of ideal conduct. Such proceedings violate the

constitutional matrix of rights that shield every citizen from arbitrary

and oppressive state action. The denial of due process under Article

10A necessarily infringes the right to dignity under Article 14 and the

right to livelihood - an inseparable facet of the right to life under

Article 9. These inter-locking guarantees collectively ensure that public

employment, though subject to discipline, remains protected by

constitutional fairness and human dignity. To sum up, the

jurisprudence, therefore, draws a clear and categorical distinction:

(a) Where departmental proceedings rest on independent and

probeable evidence of misconduct, an acquittal in the

criminal case does not absolve the employee, and both

proceedings may lawfully run concurrently.

(b) However, where the departmental action is founded solely

on the registration or pendency of an FIR, without any

distinct charge of misconduct, the employee s subsequent

acquittal extinguishes that foundation, rendering any

ensuing penalty legally untenable and constitutionally

infirm.

9. Learned AAG has also submitted that the service appeal of

Petitioner was barred by time, however, this aspect was never raised

by the department before the Tribunal. Keeping in view the

circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to take up this matter at

this stage.

10. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and the order of

dismissal of the Petitioner and re-instate the Petitioner into service.

This petition is converted into appeal and allowed.

UN/G-13/SC Appeal allowed.