“The impugned orders passed by the trial court in the Respondents’
cases show that the trial court was labouring under a misconception
that on account of compulsory retirement of the Respondents from
service they could not be criminally prosecuted for the same matter
as such prosecution was to amount to double jeopardy attracting the
provision of Article 13(a) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic
of Pakistan, 1973 and Section 403 Cr.P.C. and even the High Court
had agreed with the said opinion. It had not been appreciated by the
courts below that disciplinary action taken by a department and
criminal prosecution are quite distinct from each other and can
proceed simultaneously or one after the other and such separate
actions do not attract the principle of double jeopardy. It has already
been clarified by this Court in many a precedent case that
disciplinary proceedings are meant solely for maintaining and
ensuring purity of service whereas criminal prosecution is meant to
punish a person for the offence committed by him and that in a
proper case departmental and criminal proceedings can proceed
simultaneously or one after the other.”
2018 SCMR 733
Used in Judgment of:
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal
169-09
0 Comments