Reinstatement into service after acquittal

PLJ 2011 Tr.C. (Services) 87
[Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad]

Present: Ismail Hassan Niazi and Moazzam Hayat, Members

ZAFAR IQBAL, CONSTABLE NO. 465-C, RAILWAY POLICE LINES, MULTAN--Appellant

versus

INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS POLICE, LAHORE & 2 others--Respondents

Appeal No. 227(R)CS of 2010, decided on 5.8.2010.

Consequent Benefits--

----Reinstated into service--Criminal case was not proved--Entitlement to benefits for intervening period--Civil servant was acquitted in criminal case by judicial officer u/S. 249-A, Cr.P.C.--Reinstated into service by Dept. I.G. Police--Period remained out of service on account of dismissal was to be treated as leave without pay--Validity--Civil servant had been reinstated into service since the criminal case against him was not proved--Normally consequential benefits follow reinstatement order--Competent authority was required to give justicable reasons for denying the consequential benefits after an aggrieved civil servant was reinstated into service--No such reason was given by competent authority or by departmental appellate authority--Appellant had been reinstated into service since the charges levelled against him were not proved therefore, he was entitled to all the benefits for intervening period--Appeal was allowed.         [P. 88] A & B

Mr. Ghulam Farid Chaudhary, Advocate for Appellant.

Syed Anwar Ahmad Shah, Advocate for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 5.8.2010.

Judgment

Moazzam Hayat, Member.--On 24.07.2008 one Shehbaz Khan made a complaint that his sister was traveling by Khushal Khan Khattak Express. At about 04.00 a.m. near Bhakkar Railway Station, one woman stole Rs.57,000/- from her purse who was apprehended and handed over to constables on duty including the appellant. The woman was taken to another compartment by the appellant and his colleagues. After sometime they informed the sister of Shahbaz Khan complainant that the said woman had made escape with the stolen money. It was alleged that the appellant and his colleagues had colluded with the woman and facilitated her escape. A case was registered against the Police officials on 29.08.2008 vide FIR No. 70 under Section 221 PPC at Railway Police Station Bhakkar. It is stated that an inquiry was also ordered against the appellant and others by the Divisional Superintendent Railways. One ATO-I and one DSRP/A constituted the inquiry committee. The charges were proved. Rs. 25,000/- out of total money were returned to the sister of Shahbaz Khan. Since the charges were proved against the appellant, therefore, he was awarded the penalty of dismissal from service on 25.10.2009. Meanwhile the appellant was acquitted in the criminal case by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 249-A Cr.P.C. vide judgment dated 17.09.2009. The appellant was reinstated into service by the Deputy Inspector General of Police vide order dated 07.10.2009. The period he had remained out of service on account of his dismissal was to be treated as leave without pay. The appellant filed an appeal against this order by which the intervening period had been treated as leave without pay. His request was not acceded to by the competent authority vide order dated 01.12.2009. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed.

2.  The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is submitted that the impugned order was passed in accordance with rules.

3.  We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

4.  The appellant had been reinstated into service since the criminal case against him was not proved. Normally consequential benefits follow the reinstatement order. The competent authority is required to give justiciable reasons for denying the consequential benefits after an aggrieved civil servant is reinstated into service. In the present case no such reason was given by the competent authority or by the departmental appellate authority. As such their orders cannot be upheld.

5.  The appellant had been reinstated into service since the charges levelled against him were not proved, therefore, he was entitled to all the benefits for the intervening period. The appeal is allowed in the circumstances.

6.  There shall be no order as to costs.

7.  Parties shall be informed accordingly.

(R.A.)  Appeal allowed.