Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL SATTAR SALEEMI VS Respondent: FEDERAL BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, ISLAMABAD
1997 P L C (C
1997 P L C (C.S.) 752
[Lahore High Court]
Before Dr. Munir Ahmad Mughal, J
ABDUL SATTAR SALEEMI
versus
FEDERAL BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, ISLAMABAD through Chairman
Writ Petition No. 1238 of 1994, decided on 19th February, 1997.
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Arts. 4, 25 & 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Employee of statutory body‑‑‑Removal of employee for misconduct‑‑‑Disciplinary proceedings against employee though initiated were not completed‑‑‑Employee meanwhile was challaned and put to trial before Special Judge from where he was acquitted‑‑‑Employee's application for reinstatement was turned down on the ground that although Special Judge had acquitted employee, yet having not directed employer to reinstate him in service, he could not be reinstated in service‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Interpretation of order of Special Judge against which no appeal had been filed by respondent and which had attained finality, as bar against re‑instatement of employee appeared to be mala fide‑‑‑Administrative action based on mala fides was not warranted by law‑‑‑To enjoy protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law was inalienable right of every citizen under Art. 4 of the Constitution‑‑‑Similarly all citizens were equal before law and were entitled to equal protection of law under Art. 25 of the Constitution‑‑‑Petitioner was reinstated on his post with back benefits.
Tanvir Bashir Ansari and Hafiz S.A. Rehman for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
ORDER
The case of the petitioner is that he joined the Federal Board: of Intermediate and‑ Secondary Education, Islamabad, in the year 1976 as a Lower Division Clerk. He was promoted as Assistant in 1986. On 10‑4‑1986, he was suspended on certain allegations and in May, 1986, an Enquiry Committee was constituted and the services of the petitioner were removed on 4‑9‑1986. Meanwhile the matter was taken up by the F.I.A. and the case was registered against the petitioner. He filed an appeal against the termination and the removal from the service on which he was informed that the matter was deferred till the findings of the F.I.A. The prosecution failed to prove the charges framed against the petitioner at the trial before learned
Special Judge, Central, Rawalpindi and he was acquitted. No appeal was filed against the acquittal order dated 30‑6‑1994 of the learned Special Judge, Central, Rawalpindi. The petitioner moved an application to the respondent for reinstatement on 26‑7‑1994 but he was not reinstated. He again approached to the respondent on 28‑8‑1994 and was informed teat the Hon'ble Special Judge acquitted the petitioner but not directed the respondent to accept him as an employee, so he cannot be reinstated in service.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Enquiry Committee did not give any findings and left the matter to be investigated by the F.I.A. which was fully investigated and the petitioner was put to the acid test of trial but the prosecution could not prove allegations levelled against him and he was acquitted. The petitioner has suffered the agony of trial for 8 years and even payment of back benefits cannot be adequate compensation for so long humiliation of a citizen.
3. In this manner the interpretation of the order of learned special Judge, Central, Rawalpindi against which no appeal has been filed by the respondent and which has attained finality, as a bar against reinstatement of the petitioner, appears to be mala fide. An administrative action based on mala fide is not warranted by law. To enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen under Article 4 of the Constitution. Similarly all citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law under Article 25(1) of the Constitution.
4. Resultantly this writ petition is allowed and the petitioner is reinstated on his post with back benefits. Order accordingly with no order as, to costs.
A.A./A‑123/L Petition accepted.