Zahid Saleem v. Inspector General of Police, Sindh & others

Background

The appellant was an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Counter Terrorism Department (CTD), Karachi. After an arrest he had made, a criminal case under sections 365/34 PPC was registered against him. While that case was pending, he was dismissed from service by order dated 15.12.2019, solely because of his involvement in the criminal case. His first departmental appeal was rejected on 14.12.2022.

On 11.07.2023 he was acquitted by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi Central. Within 30 days, on 01.08.2023, he filed a fresh departmental appeal to the Inspector General of Police based on his acquittal. It was regretted on 03.01.2024. He filed his service appeal on 02.02.2024.

Issues before the Tribunal

• Was a fresh departmental appeal competent after acquittal, when the first appeal had already been rejected, or was the service appeal time-barred?
• Could the dismissal stand once the officer was acquitted of the only charge on which it was based?

The Tribunal's reasoning

The department argued that only one departmental appeal is provided under the Sindh Police (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1988, and relied on Superintendent of Police, D.I. Khan v. Ihsanullah (2007 SCMR 562). The Tribunal instead followed Muhammad Zameer v. D.I.G. Police, D.G. Khan (2010 PLC (C.S.) 1165). There, the Supreme Court held that once the criminal case that formed the ground of removal fails, the removal can be reconsidered through a fresh appeal. Because the appellant filed his fresh departmental appeal within 30 days of acquittal, and the service appeal within 30 days of its rejection, the appeal was held competent and within time.

On the merits, nothing on record showed any charge other than the criminal case. Where acquittal removes the sole reason for the punishment, reinstatement cannot be refused. The department relied on Faraz Naveed (2022 SCMR 1770), which holds that departmental proceedings are independent of criminal proceedings. The Tribunal found it inapplicable because no regular inquiry had been held to prove any charge departmentally. It also relied on SSP Hyderabad v. Iqbal Ahmad (2004 SCMR 641) and Rule 16.3 of the Police Rules, 1934. The department did not show that any exception under Rule 16.3 applied.

Outcome

The appeal was allowed and the original and appellate orders were set aside. The appellant was reinstated in service with back benefits, if he was not gainfully employed elsewhere.

Why it matters

Police officers are sometimes dismissed simply because an FIR is registered against them. This judgment confirms that an acquittal can reopen the matter even after a departmental appeal has failed, provided the officer acts promptly after the acquittal. It also shows the limits of the "independent proceedings" argument: it carries weight only where the department has actually proved misconduct in a proper inquiry.