Miar BASHIR AHMAD vs BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB
The petitioner, an Assistant in the Board of Revenue, was convicted by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore, for forgery of official records but was subsequently acquitted by the High Court. Following his acquittal, the petitioner was reinstated in service; however, the Board of Revenue denied him back benefits, asserting that his acquittal was not honourable. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged this decision before the Service Tribunal and subsequently sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question concerns whether an employee acquitted of criminal charges is entitled to back benefits upon reinstatement, specifically addressing the criteria for determining if an acquittal is considered honourable for the purpose of service benefits. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the petitioner's contention that the High Court's judgment contained no findings suggesting the acquittal was not honourable, and to consider the applicability of prior precedents regarding the entitlement to back benefits. The matter was set for further hearing to determine if the denial of back benefits was legally sustainable.
- Is an employee entitled to back benefits upon reinstatement following an acquittal in criminal proceedings?
- What constitutes an honourable acquittal for the purpose of claiming back benefits in service matters?
- Can an employer deny back benefits to a reinstated employee based on a subjective assessment of the acquittal?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner was serving as an Assistant in the Board of Revenue. Together with another person he was tried by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore on charges involving forgery of the official record. He was convicted and sentenced to a term of two years imprisonment. However, on appeal, the High Court acquitted him. Upon his acquittal he was re- instated in service but he was denied the back benefits on the ground that his acquittal was not honourable. He filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal but without any success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is contended that there was nothing in the judgment of the High Court to show that his acquittal was not honourable. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of this Court in Sardar Khan v. Senior Member (Establishment) Board of Revenue (C. A. No,536 of 1980) to support the claim for back benefit.
3. The contention raised in support of this petition needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted.
Security for costs in the sum of Rs,5,000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any, within two months.