Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUKHTAR AHMED VS Respondent: SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, MULTAN CIRCLE, WAPDA, MULTAN
1994 P L C (C
1994 P L C (C.S.) 227
[Federal Service Tribunal]
Before Misbah Ullah Khan and Ch. Hasan Nawaz, Members
MUKHTAR AHMED
Versus
THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, MULTAN CIRCLE, WAPDA, MULTAN and another
Appeal No. 246(L) of 1992, heard on 27th April, 1993
(a)
Fundamental Rules‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑ R. 54‑‑‑Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, R.4‑‑‑Civil servant‑‑‑Misconduct‑‑‑Penalty of censure and stoppage of three annual increments without future effect was awarded to civil servant‑‑‑Criminal proceedings were also initiated against civil servant which culminated in his acquittal on benefit of doubt‑‑‑Civil servant claiming full emoluments for the period of suspension, which was rejected by the department‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Civil servant, in spite of acquittal from Criminal Court on benefit of doubt, would not be entitled to full emoluments of period of suspension‑‑‑Provision of Fundamental Rules, R.54, could be attracted to his case only if he had also been exonerated of charge made against him under Disciplinary Rules‑‑‑For entitlement to full pay, acquittal should not only be in the criminal case but also in the proceedings under Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973.
(b) Fundamental Rules...
‑‑‑‑R. 54‑‑‑Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, R.2(2) & (3)‑‑‑Term' "revising authority" as used i1i R.54, Fundamental Rules ‑‑‑Meaning, scope and import‑‑‑Term "revising authority" would mean "authority" or "authorised officer", as defined in Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 (under R.2(2) & (3) who can Pass final order on the case and not the authority who can pass an order in appeal‑‑‑Order having been passed by "competent authority" was valid and lawful.
Mian Mahmood Hussain for Appellant.
Ch. Ghulam Hasan Gulshan for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 27th April, 1993.
JUDGMENT
CH. HASAN NAWAZ (MEMBER).‑‑‑The appellant who is in the respondents' employment as Sub‑Divisional Clerk, remained under suspension for the period from 5‑7‑1982 to 4‑11‑1982 and then from 5‑11‑1984 to 17‑8‑1991 on account of the pendency of a criminal case against him under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1947.
2. He was, however, acquitted in the criminal case by the Special Judge concerned on benefit of doubt by judgment dated 20‑11‑1991. After having been so acquitted, he made a representation for an order allowing him full emoluments for the period of suspension. His request was, however, turned down by the Superintending Engineer concerned (respondent No. 1) through order dated 7‑6‑1992. When his departmental appeal dated 5‑7‑1992 addressed to the Chairman, Area Electricity Board WAPDA, Multan (respondent No. 2) failed to produce any result, he came to the Tribunal with the present appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 for an order setting aside the impugned order of 7‑6‑1992.
3. It may be mentioned as a relevant fact that disciplinary proceedings were also conducted against him in addition to the criminal proceedings. He was found guilty and those proceedings culminated in the passage of following order of 30‑6‑1985:
"ORDER
The defence adduced by the accused official was examined in the light of formal enquiry report and other relevant record and found the same unsatisfactory. The official was heard in person. A final show?cause notice after determining the provisional penalty was served upon the accused against which he submitted his reply but failed to bring any new facts which could justify his position. He was given the opportunity of personal hearing. I am fully convinced that the official is guilty of the charge.
In exercise of powers conferred upon me as Superintending Engineer (Electy.) WAPDA 1st Circle, Multan, being competent Authority, I Ch. Sadiq Ali, pass the following orders:
(1) The official is hereby censured.
(2) Three Annual Increments of the official are hereby stopped without future effect.
(Sd.) (CH. SADIQ ALI), Superintending Engineer (E), ?WAPDA 1st Circle, Multan."
?4. Reliance in support of appellant's case has been placed by the learned counsel on the following provisions of Fundamental Rule 54:
"F.R. 54: ‑When the suspension of a Government servant is held to have been 6ojustifiable or not wholly justifiable; or
when a Government servant who has been dismissed, removed or suspended is reinstated the revising or appellate authority may grant to him for the period of his absence from duty ‑‑
(a) if he is honourably acquitted, the full pay to which he would have been entitled if he had not been dismissed, removed or suspended and, by an order to be separately recorded, any allowance of which he was in receipt prior to his dismissal, removal or suspension; or
(b) if otherwise, such proportion of such pay and allowances as the revising or appellate authority may prescribe.
In a case falling under clause (a), the period of absence from duty will be treated as a period spent on duty.
In a case falling under clause (b), it will not be treated as a period spent on duty unless the revising or appellate authority so directs.
5. The argument is that since the appellant has been honourably acquitted in the criminal case, he is entitled to full pay of the period of suspension and that the impugned order is not legally sustainable. There is no doubt about the fact that he has been acquitted in the criminal case on benefit of doubt. But the circumstance of this acquittal alone is not sufficient to entitle him to the relief claimed; which is because he has been penalised in the disciplinary proceedings against him.
6. We have already taken notice of order dated 30‑6‑1985, whereby penalty of censure and stoppage of three annual increments without future effect was awarded against him by the competent authority. This being so, he is not entitled to full emoluments of the period of suspension. The provisions of Fundamental Rule 54 could be attracted to his case only if he had also been exonerated of the charge made against him under the Disciplinary Rules. For an entitlement to full pay, acquittal should not only be in the criminal case but also in the proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules.
7.???????? Merits apart, an objection has been raised by the appellant's learned counsel that the impugned order of 7‑6‑1992 was not competent as it has neither been passed by the revising nor by the appellate authority. We hold that there is no force in this objection. As we see from the explanation under Rule 54, the "revising authority" means the "authority" or "authorised officer" as defined in the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, who passes the final order on the case and not the authority who passes an order on appeal. In view of these provisions, we feel no hesitation in saying that the impugned order of 7‑6‑1992 was passed by the competent Authority and that there is nothing legally wrong with it. .
8. For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed as being without any force. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Parties are to be informed.
A.A./878/Sr.F ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.