Find a Lawyer

Case No. 93 of 1982, decided on 6th July, 1982.

--Civil servant convicted for offence involving moral turpitude -Dismissed from service due to such conviction-Interference refused by Service Tribunal and such person, held, cannot be allowed to remain in Government service-Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 420.

Bashir Ahmad for Appellant.

Haroonur Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.

. -Muhammad Habib, ex-Patwari has filed this appeal against the order dated 3-12-1981, passed by the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, by which his order of dismissal was maintained. The appellant has impleaded Assistant Commissioner, Wazirabad, Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala, Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore and Government of the Punjab through Secretary, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order be set aside and he be re-instated in service.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was involved in case under sections 420 and 468, P. P. C. and after being tried by Anti-Corrup tion Judge, was sentenced to three years' imprisonment and fine under sec tion 468, P. P. C. and for one year and fine under section 420, P. P. C. On appeal the High Court acquitted him from the charge under section 468, P. P. C. but his conviction under section 420 was maintained. His petition for Special Leave to Appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. However, after his release from Jail, the appellant managed to report for duty but when this matter was brought to light through a complaint filed by one Muhammad Ismail in which appellant's removal from service was demanded on the basis of said conviction, the matter was taken up by the Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala, who directed the A. C., Wazirabad to look into the case. He proceeded against the appellant and dismiss ed him from service vide his order dated 4-7-1981. His appeal before the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, also failed. Hence this appeal.

4. The case is still at the stage of preliminary haring. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. The fact of the matter is that the appellant is a convict who has suffered imprisonment in case of a moral turpitude and sneeked into service by some manipulation after concealment of facts of his conviction. When the matter was brought to the notice of the Authority, action was initiated against him and he was dismissed from service. The law on this point is settled i.e. a convict cannot be allowed to remain into Government service if the conviction involves an offence of moral turpitude.

6. In view of the above we do not find any force in this appeal which is dismissed in limine, with costs.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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