Abscondence in Criminal Case Does Not Bar Civil or Service Remedies.
 |
| Pld 2026 sc 37 |
فوجداری مقدمہ میں مفرور ہونے کا سول و سروس حقوق پر اثر — PLD 2026 SC 37
پس منظر
بنیادی قانونی سوال
سپریم کورٹ کا فیصلہ
آئینی اہمیت
منفرد اصول
Must read judgment.
PLD 2026 Supreme Court 37
Present: Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Naeem Akhter Afghan and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, JJ
ALLAH DIWAYA and others-Petitioners
Versus
DIRECTOR EDUCATION QUETTA and others---Respondents
Civil Petitions Nos. 41-0 and 42-0 of 2022, decided on 24th October, 2025,
(Against the judgment dated 30.01.2018 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No.3989 of 2016).
(a) Constitution of Pakistan---
-Arts.4, 9, 10A, 25 & 212(3)-Abscondence in criminal proceedings---Person's status as a proclaimed offender--Effect upon his right to pursue civil or service remedies--Its legal consequences would be confined to the criminal sphere only-Criminal fugitivity and civil adjudication of rights-Highlighted as two distinct legal domains-Brief facts of the matter were that the petitioners were appointed as junior vernacular teachers' nearly twenty-five years ago, but their appointments were later declared bogus by the education department resulting in stoppage of their salaries, though no formal removal order had yet been passed and their service appeal seeking release of salaries was dismissed by the Punjab Service Tribunal solely on the ground that they were absconders in a separate criminal case-Pivotal issue requiring determination before the Supreme Court was as to "whether the status of an absconder or fugitive in a criminal case, by itself, barred or disentitled a person from pursuing civil civil or service law remedies before a competent forum?"-Held: Principle that a fugitive or absconder could not invoke courts appellate jurisdiction in a criminal matter was strictly confined to criminal proceedings and its extension into civil, family, or service-law contexts found no support in either doctrine or policy-Civil and service adjudications determined rights over property, employment, or entitlements that were enforceable irrespective of the claimant's physical custody, and the litigant's absence seldom frustrated the process or its execution--Unless a statute expressly provided otherwise or the fugitivity demonstrably obstructed adjudication, abscondence in a criminal matter could not extinguish or or susp suspend independent civil or service rights-Any disadvantage arising from the status of a proclaimed offender expressiy pro ordinarily attached only to the very case in which the proclamation was issued and did not extend to other matters lacking nexus to that proceeding-Accordingly, a proclaimed offender could not, merely by virtue of that status, he barred from instituting or defending a civil suit or prosecuting an appeal concerning his civil rights and obligations-To dismiss the petitioners solely based on their alleged abscondence was, therefore, a clear misapplication of law, as it conflated two distinct jurisdictions and deprived the petitioners of adjudication on issues squarely within their civil and service rights-Impugned judgment was set aside--Present petitions were converted into appeal and allowed, in circumstances.
Malik Ahmad Usman Nawaz v. The Appellate Tribunal (Elections Act, 2017) 2024 SCMR 1202; Umar Farooq v. Sajjad Ahmad
Qamar and others PLD 2024 SC 688 and Tahir Sadiq v. Faisal Ali and others 2024 SCMR 775 rel.
(b) Administration of justice-
-Whether a person's status as an absconder in a criminal case can operate as a bar to the pursuit of civil or service-law remedies-Legality-The right of access to justice cannot be curtailed merely because a person stands accused, or has absconded, in another domain of law.
Manzoor Ahmed Rahmani, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in both cases/via video link from Branch Registry Quetta).
Muhammad Ayaz Swati, A.A.G. Balochistan for Respondents (in both cases).