Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 10 (R) of 1982, decided on 5th January, 1983.

‑‑S. 4‑Departmental authority ordering re‑instatement pending appeal before Tribunal‑Appeal becoming infructuous‑Appellant facing criminal trial also‑Departmental proceedings afresh otherwise than as a result of criminal case, in circumstances, held, would amount to fraud with Tribunal and would be illegal as no one can be vexed twice for same cause.

Appellant in person.

Habib Sarwar Tariq, Law Officer for Respondents.

MR. JUSTICE SHAH ABDUR RASHID (CHAIRMAN).

‑A letter has been received and placed on the file from the respondent (Directorate General of Registration), wherein it .has been stated that Mr. Inayatullah Bajwa, appellant has been re‑instated in service and his appeal has become infruc tuous. This re‑instatement is unconditional as nothing has been stated therein as to why the order of re‑instatement has been passed. Mr. Habib Suwar Tariq however, says that there is a criminal case pending against the appellant and in connection therewith he is under suspension and shall continue to remain under suspension till the case is decided or decision is taken to re‑instate him. This is quite a different matter. If the appellant is found guilty by the Court, that would give a fresh cause of action to the respondent to proceed against the appellant but in case, on the previous charge, the appellant is departmentally proceeded against, then this will amount to fraud with this Tribunal and the order would be illegal, as n one can be vexed twice for the same cause. This appeal has become infructuous and the appellant has been re‑instated. ..However, if the appellant is convicted by the Court then action can be taken against him on the conviction and not otherwise. As regards suspension, the appellant can seek separate remedy.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.