SHER MUHAMMAD Versus REVENUE OFFICER

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑ In this leave to appeal petition a successful appellant before the Federal Service Tribunal (his appeal against dismissal was allowed), has challenged the impugned order for modification of the following dircction:‑

2. "We, therefore, set aside the impugned order‑‑without consequential benefits."

3. Learned counsel has contended that after having held that the action against the petitioner was illegal and thus was nullity in the eyes of law "the Tribunal should not have withheld the consequential benefits".

4. The controversy is not as simple as put by the learned counsel. The learned Members of the Tribunal found some procedural defects in the departmental proceedings conducted against the petitioner. It might have been a good case for acceptance of the appeal for remand of the case for fresh inquiry. However, presumably keeping in view the nature of the charges against the petitioner such a direction was not thought necessary. Instead it was remarked that the charges of inefficiency and misconduct "would not be considered to have been proved beyond doubt". Having rendered this finding which meant both the possibilities in law: One, that the petitioner was guilty and the other equal possibility that he was not guilty (that is the interpretation of expression "benefit of doubt"); it was perhaps inapt, in the context of the present case, to have gone to the extent of using the word "nullity". The legal import of the words and expression: "benefit of doubt" and "nullity" was not properly comprehended. In this background there are two possibilities: One, to accept the petitioner's grievance and while allowing his appeal remand the case for his fresh trial on the same charges and the other that to view of the nature of the charges he should not be put to this re‑trial which might take a long time.

5. That being so, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The petitioner should have felt satisfied with the order of reinstatement.

6. M.A.K./S‑312/5 Leave refused.