2018 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J.

Through instant appeal, order dated 04.05.2015 passed by respondent has been assailed, whereby relief of reinstatement in service from date of dismissal order, has been declined.

2. Brief facts are that consequent upon an inquiry, appellant was dismissed from service vide Notification dated 24.05.2012. Appellant filed Service Appeal No.11 of 2012 before this Tribunal, which was accepted vide. judgment dated 16.01.2015 and the matter was remitted to the competent authority to take further steps in the disciplinary proceedings as per relevant rules. The said judgment was assailed by appellant before Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing C.P. No.172 of 2015 but the same was dismissed vide order dated 05.03.2015. Appellant was reinstated in service with immediate effect, vide Notification dated 27.03.2015. Appellant filed representations before the competent authority for reinstatement in service from date of dismissal order, etc. but the same were declined vide letter dated 04.05.2015. Hence, this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for appellant submit that appellant is entitled to reinstatement from date of dismissal order on acceptance of his appeal by this Tribunal, however, no other relief is pressed. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent submits that order passed by this Tribunal is silent qua reinstatement from date of dismissal and disciplinary proceedings are pending.

4. Arguments heard. Available record perused.

5. Perusal of record reveals that appellant was dismissed from service vide Notification dated 24.05.2012, which was set aside by this Tribunal, while accepting the appeal with the following observations: "

4. In the sequel, while setting aside the impugned Notification dated 24.5.2012, this appeal is accepted and the Registrar of the Lahore High Court, Lahore is directed to place the matter before the Authority for granting reasonable time to the appellant for submitting reply to the final show-cause notice dated 10.3.2012 and thereafter to take further steps as per relevant rules." [emphasis supplied]

6. Pursuant whereof Notification dated 27.03.2015 was issued reinstating appellant in service with immediate effect, which reads as under:- "In implementation of the judgment dated 16.01.2015 passed by Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal in Service Appeal No.11 of 2012 and in supersession of this Court's Notification No.78/RHC/CJJ, dated 24.05.2012, the Chief Justice and Judges are pleased to reinstate Mr. Muhammad Anayat Gondal as Civil Judge-cum-Magistrate into service with immediate effect." [emphasis supplied]

7. The above notification has been issued "with immediate effect" instead of date of dismissal i.e. 24.05.2012, whereas this Tribunal while accepting the appeal, in exercise of appellate powers vested in it, set aside the dismissal notification and notification dated 24.05.2012, for all intents and purposes had become non-existent, entitling appellant reinstatement in service from date of dismissal. This aspect of the matter was not considered in the impugned order, operative part of which is reproduced as under:- "I am directed to refer to your letter bearing Endst.No.4227, dated 13.04.2015 and representations qua grant of back benefits, withdrawal of show-cause notice for enhancement of penalty and filing of complaints filed by Mr. Sana Ullah Deval, Advocate, filed by Mr. Muhammad Anayet Gondal, Civil Judge, Class-I/ OSD, Civil Courts, Lahore dated 07.04.2015 and to state that the said representations were considered and declined by the Hon'ble Chief Justice."

8. Argument of learned counsel for respondent that relief of reinstatement from date of dismissal order was not specifically granted and disciplinary proceedings against appellant are still pending, is misconceived in asmuch as appeal of the appellant was accepted and the judgment earlier passed by this Tribunal reflects that respondent was only given the mandate to proceed in the matter after providing an opportunity to submit reply to the show-cause notice and conclude it as per rules. It was nowhere observed that reinstatement from date of dismissal was postponed till conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. Since the judgment was accepted by the respondent, thus, the same had attained finality as no steps were taken to get said judgment set aside by Hon'ble Apex Court. In the circumstances, depriving appellant from reinstatement from date of dismissal without any fault on his part, would not be just, especially when impugned dismissal notification stood annulled. Undeniably, appellant's claim for reinstatement from date of dismissal has neither been repelled with reasons in the impugned order nor the same were challenged/rebutted in the report and parawise comments filed by respondent.

9. Resultantly, instant appeal is allowed to the extent that respondent is directed to place the matter before competent authority for issuance of Notification of reinstatement of petitioner from the date of his dismissal i.e. 24.05.2012. This order shall not be construed to have any impact on the pending disciplinary proceedings against appellant. ZC/1-PST Appeal allowed.