Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

2004 P L C (C

2004 P L C (C.S.) 762

[Punjab Service Tribunal]

Before Shafqat Ali Hijazi, Member

Sh. MUHAMMAD UMER and others

Versus

SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, HIGHWAY CIRCLE, LAHORE and others

Appeals Nos. 2194, 2195 of 2001, 150 of 2002 and 299 of 2002, decided on 20th September, 2002.

Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑--

‑‑‑‑R.4(1)(b)(iv)‑‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4‑‑ Dismissal from service‑‑‑Appeal against‑‑‑Appellants against whom criminal cases were registered were tried by Summary Military Court and were awarded different punishments‑ ‑‑Appellants filed Constitutional petitions against their conviction orders‑‑‑During pendency of said Constitutional petitions, respondent Authority on basis of conviction, of appellant, proceeded against appellant and after issuing them show-cause notice in jail, dismissed appellants, from service carrying out Ex parte proceedings against them because they could not reply the show‑cause notice against them‑‑‑High Court accepting Constitutional petitions filed by appellants against their conviction, acquitted them holding that alleged offences against appellants having been committed beyond three years, trial of appellant by Summary Military Court was violation of Army Act ‑‑‑After said acquittal appellants filed Departmental appeals for their re‑instatement in service, but same having been dismissed; appellants had filed appeals before Service Tribunal‑‑‑Very ground on which appellant were dismissed from service having been declared unlawful by High Court against which no appeal had been filed by respondent Authority order of High Court had attained finality‑‑‑After final order of High Court, grounds of dismissal of appellants, having been cancelled, their dismissal order from service, would not stand‑Order, dismissing appellants from service, were set aside and they were ordered to be reinstated in ,service Intervening period was to be treated as leave of the kind due to appellants.

Dr. Ehsan‑ul‑Haque Khan for appellant.

Muhammad Aslam Awais, Distt, Attorney for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 18th September, 2002.

JUDGMENT

SHAFQAT ALI HIJAZI (MEMBER)‑‑‑Through this single judgment, I intend to dispose of Appeals Nos.2194 of 2001, 2195 of 2001, 150 of 2002 and 299 of 2002, as they involve common question of fact arid of law.

2. A case F.I.R. No. 10/84 was registered with PS, D.A.C.E. Lahore (Director, Anti‑Corruption Establishment, Lahore) against 15 persons including the appellants under sections 409/420/218/109, P.P.C. read with 5/2/47 P.C.A. The case was tried by the Summary Military Court No. 37 and they were awarded different punishments by President, Summary Military Court No.37. Against this conviction, Writ Petition No.676/89 was also filed by appellants Abdul Sattar, Sheikh Muhammad Umar and Pervaiz Akhtar and others. Meanwhile another Writ Petition No.5233 of 1992 was filed. Both the Writ Petitions were decided on 23‑1‑2001 by the Division Bench of the High Court and vide para 7 of the judgment, it was held that alleged offences having been committed, beyond 3 years, the trial of petitioners was violation of Army Act. The appeals were accepted and their convictions were set aside being without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Men while the appellants after conviction were proceeded against by the department. A show‑cause notice was issued to them which were served to them in jail but they did not reply to the show‑cause notice. Hence ex parte proceedings were carried out and they were dismissed from service on 5‑5‑1985 by the Superintending Engineer on the basis of conviction. After acquittal from the Court they filed departmental appeal for reinstatement in service which was rejected on 20‑10‑2001. Hence these appeals were filed.

3. Arguments heard. Record perused. Departmental representative and District Attorney have retied upon that ex parte proceedings were carried out against them and then appeals are time‑barred and are not maintainable, against the orders of dismissal from service dated 5‑5‑1985. On the other hand learned Counsel has relied upon the decision of the High Court dated 23‑1‑2001 by which the trial by the Summary Military Court was held to, be unlawful. The appellants could not file appeals against dismissal in the presence of conviction as they had no genuine grounds. After their acquittal and declaring the trial illegal, the cause of action arose. 'They filed appeals which were rejected being time‑barred. The very ground on which they were dismissed from service has been. declared unlawful by the High Court against which no appeal has been filed by, the department. Therefore, the order of the High Court has attained finality. After this order the grounds of dismissal has been cancelled, therefore, their dismissal does riot stand. As a matter of fact after the orders of the High Court, department should, have taken the action as the, cause of action was removed but department did not.

4. Therefore, by the above discussion at present no allegation stand against them. The appeals are accepted. The, impugned orders dated 5‑5‑1985 and 20‑10‑2001 are set aside. The appellants reinstated in service. The intervening period shall be treated as leave of the kind duet to them.

H.B.T./7/PST Appeals accepted.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from SERVICE-TRIBUNAL-PUNJAB
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant