1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD ISMAIL (MEMBER).‑‑‑While working as Meter Reading Supervisor Grade‑1 appellant was proceeded against under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (E & D) Rules, 1978 on the charge of misconduct and the competent Authority by order dated 17‑1‑1993 retired him compulsorily from service. He preferred an appeal and the competent Authority by order dated 26‑1‑1994 set aside the order of compulsory retirement and consequently the appellant was reinstated in service. After his reinstatement the appellant made a representation to the Chairman, Area Electricity Board, Gujranwala for treating the intervening period from 17‑1‑1993 to 26‑1‑1994 as duty period and in reply vide Office Order dated 30‑8‑1994 he was informed that the period from 17‑1‑1993 to 26‑1‑1994 shall be treated under F.R. 54(b). Being aggrieved the appellant made a review petition on 19‑10‑1994 to the Chairman, Area Electricity Board, Gujranwala to review the order passed by him and after expiry of 90 days waiting period he brought his grievance before this Tribunal by filing this service appeal on 7‑2‑1995.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant Mian Mahmood Hussain argued the appeal contending that order of compulsory .retirement from service was set aside by the competent Authority and the appellant was reinstated in service meaning thereby that he was exonerated of the charge and the intervening period during which the appellant remained out of service is not attracted by the provisions of F.R. 54(b) but his case was to be dealt with under the provisions of FR 54(a). The respondents have filed objections. They have raised the questions of limitation and on merit, it has been stated that the regularization of the intervening period was a discretionary matter of the competent authority, which he exercised and treated it under the provisions of FR 54(b) and the order is just and proper.

3. The order of compulsory retirement of the appellant from service was passed by the Chairman, Area Electricity Board, Gujranwala as a result of disciplinary proceedings taken under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. On appeal, the appellate authority set aside that order and consequently the appellant was reinstated in service. With regard to the nature of intervening period the matter lay within the jurisdiction of the Revising Authority, which means the "Authority" as defined under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules as mentioned above. The order of compulsory retirement was passed on the charge of misconduct which the appellant did commit and as such he was not given the clean chit so as to claim clear‑cut exoneration and therefore, while treating the period of absence from 17‑1‑1993 to 26‑1‑1994, the competent authority who was the Chairman, Area Electricity Board, Gujranwala (who had earlier passed the order of compulsory retirement) was justified in treating this period under the provisions of FR 54. (b) and since it was not an honourable exoneration from the charge, it was not a fit case to be dealt with under the provisions of FR 54(a). We are of the view that the competent Authority rightly treated the intervening period under FR 54(b). With regard to limitation, it is suffice to say that under the rules, the order passed by the Chairman, Area Electricity Board was appealable before the General 8 Manager, the next higher Authority but the appellant made a review petition on 19‑10‑1994 against the order passed by the Chairman, Area Electricity Board, Gujranwala and it was an exercise in futility, because, there was no provision for review petition and departmental appeal could be preferred and that too to the competent Authority. There being no final rejection order this appeal filed on 7‑2‑1995 is also incompetent.

4. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is dismissed with costs. H.B.T./1064/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.