Pakistan Case LawMUHAMMAD YOUSAF Versus P.O.F. Through Chief Administrative Officer And Another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which denied the petitioner back benefits following his reinstatement. The petitioner, an Assistant Foreman at Pakistan Ordnance Factories, was initially dismissed for unauthorized absence. Although the Tribunal previously ordered his reinstatement without back benefits, it granted the department liberty to hold a fresh inquiry. The department subsequently chose not to proceed with the charges. The petitioner argued that this decision not to press charges effectively exonerated him, thereby entitling him to back benefits under Fundamental Rule 54. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the employer's decision to abandon disciplinary proceedings against a reinstated employee creates an entitlement to back benefits under the specified rule. The Court held that the legal question regarding the applicability of Fundamental Rule 54 in such circumstances warrants further consideration, and accordingly granted leave to appeal, directing the parties to prepare the appeal on the existing record with the option to file additional documents.
- Does the decision of a department not to proceed with disciplinary charges against a reinstated employee entitle that employee to back benefits under Fundamental Rule 54?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal consider subsequent departmental orders that were not part of the original Service Tribunal judgment?
- Section 9, Civil Servants Act 1973
- Fundamental Rule 54, Fundamental Rules
ORDER
AJMAL MIAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 8-2-1990 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, in Appeal No. 442-R of 1989 filed by the petitioner, dismissing the same.
The facts to be noted are that the petitioner was working as an Assistant Foreman in the Pakistan Ordnance Factories, Wah. He was dismissed from service on the ground of remaining absent in spite of refusal to grant leave. He filed Service Appeal No.82(R)/87 which was allowed by the Tribunal by its order dated 14-9-1988, the operative portion of the order reads as follows:-
" .....In these circumstances the appeal is partly accepted and it is directed that the appellant should be reinstated in service. Back benefits will, however, not be allowed to him. 6. As the appeal has been partly accepted on technical grounds, the department will be at liberty to hold a fresh enquiry against the appellant."
The petitioner, being aggrieved by the portion of the above order whereby he was declined back benefits, filed a petition for leave to Appeal No.26-R/89 in this Court, in which reliance was placed on the respondent's letter dated 25-2-19,89 whereby the petitioner was reinstated subject to the condition that he would not claim the back benefits as per decision of the Service Tribunal. It was also stated that no action was being taken against him for his previous absence despite the fact that the Tribunal in its aforesaid order permitted the respondent to do so. This Court while dismissing the above petition for leave commented upon the above order as follows:-
"5. The Darned counsel brought to our notice the subsequent order passed by `the authority whereby it decided not to proceed with the charges and to end the matter. That order is subsequent to the order of the Tribunal, and independently creates an entitlement for the plaintiff to seek redress against that order like any other departmental order. This petition cannot take into consideration subsequent orders passed by the competent authority for reopening the order competently passed by the Service Tribunal. Section 9 of the Civil Servants Act justifies and the existence of charges protects the order of the Service Tribunal denying the remuneration for the interregnum when there was no legal decision of the competent authority available on the charges."
After the above decision, the petitioner approached the Service Tribunal for the back benefits on the ground that, since the charge was not pressed against him, it should be presumed that he was exonerated from the charge and, therefore, was entitled to the back benefits under Fundamental Rule 54 but the Tribunal declined the same by the impugned judgment.
We have heard Mr. A.Wahab-Alkhairi, learned A.S.C. Appearing for the petitioner. We are inclined to grant leave to consider the question, whether the factum that the respondent deckled not to press the charge against the petitioner, entitled him to the back benefits under Fundamental Rule 54. Leave is accordingly granted.
The appeal shall be prepared on the basis of the present record with the direction to the parties to file additional documents, if any, necessary for the disposal of the appeal.
Judges on this bench
- Ajmal Mian2,984 judgments
- Rustam S. Sidhwa1,121 judgments