SABOOR AHMAD vs Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, SUI SOUTHERN COMPANY
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding his entitlement to salary and allowances during a period of absence from service. The petitioner, an employee of the Sui Northern Gas Company Limited, was terminated following his arrest and detention in a criminal case under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Upon his subsequent acquittal, he was reinstated in service, but the period of his absence was treated as 'special leave without pay' by the employer. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to back benefits and salary for the period he remained absent due to incarceration, despite his eventual acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the reinstatement was conditional, and since the petitioner lacked accrued leave, the employer's decision to treat the absence as leave without pay was lawful. The Court affirmed that it would not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the departmental authority and the Service Tribunal absent any legal infirmity, particularly where no question of public importance is involved.
- Is an employee entitled to salary and allowances for a period of absence from duty due to incarceration if they are subsequently acquitted of the criminal charges?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by a departmental authority and the Federal Service Tribunal?
- Does an employer have the discretion to treat a period of absence due to detention as 'special leave without pay' upon reinstatement?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
JAVED IQBAL, J.-- Petitioner Saboor Ahmad has impugned the judgment dated 8.3.2000 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed in Sui Northern Gas Company Limited in 1995 and his services were terminated on 15.4.1998 on account of absence from duty. The petitioner was arrested by the Quetta Police in a case got registered against him under Section 302, P.P.C. on 25.5.1997 and he could not perform his official duties due to detention and his services were resultantly terminated .after .payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice with effect from 25.5.1997. The petitioner was acquitted from the case registered against him by learned Sessions Judge, Quetta, vide judgment dated 18.6.1998 and in consequence thereof the petitioner was reinstated in service and the period of absence was treated as special leave without pay. The petitioner being aggrieved preferred a Departmental appeal on 18.9.1998 on the ground that he was entitled to pay and allowances for the period of absence which, however, was not responded and learned Federal Service Tribunal was approached by way of Appeal No. 25(Q)/1998 which has been dismissed, hence this petition.
3. Heard Saboor Ahmad, petitioner in person who mainly contended that the period of absence could not have been treated as special leave without pay because he was got involved in a false and concocted case and finally acquitted. It is next contended that it was beyond his competency to perform official duties during the period of his detention.
4. We have carefully examined the contention as agitated by the petitioner in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. We have minutely perused the impugned judgment. It is to be noted that petitioner was reinstated by means of order dated 31.8.1998 which is reproduced hereinbelow for read reference:- "You are advised that you will not be entitled for Casual/Privilege and Sick Leave for the period of your absence up to and including 31.8.1998 as you have not earned this same. However, as a special case your absence is being condoned through Special Leave without pay up to and including 31.8:1998.
Please treat our Letter No. DO/SG:3121/357, dated 15.4.1998 and Discharge Certificate No. 355, dated 1 5.4.1 998 as cancelled."
A bare perusal would reveal that his reinstatement was conditional and period of absence of petitioner, (15.9.1997 to 31.8.1998) was treated as "Special leave without pay" and rightly so as the petitioner had no casual or earned leave at his credit and accordingly the question of salary and other benefits for the said period does not arise. The finding of facts recorded by the department duly upheld by the learned Federal Service Tribunal has not been shown to have suffered from any legal infirmity or non: consideration of any material piece of evidence. Besides that no question of public importance is involved in the matter and-ordinarily this Court does not interfere with a concurrent finding of fact given by Departmental Authority and Service Tribunal. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in cases titled Muhammad Munir Ahmad v. Water and Power Development Authority (1 990 SCMR 907), Munir Ahmad v. Punjab Service Tribunal (1990 SCM R 1005), Faiz Ahmad v. Deputy Postmaster- General, Lahore and others (1991 SCM R 368), Muhammad Binyamin v. Water and Power Development Authority (1991 SCM R 383).
In the light of foregoing discussion the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.