1985 PLP (C (PLC)

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugn ed order, dated 10th April, 1984 being illegal, without lawful authority, mala fide, sketchy, non‑speaking and arbitrary be set aside and the appellant be declared to be entitled to receive the arrears of the suspension period starting from 28th August, 1958 to 19th August, 1965 including the annual increments to this period.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined the service as Overseer in the P. W. D. Building Department Lahore on 19th August, 1955. On 28th August, 1958, he was implicated in a criminal case and was prosecuted under section 379/467, P. P. C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention Corruption Act, 1947. He was found guilty under section 467, P. P. C. and sentenced to three years, R: I. He was placed under suspen sion w.e.f. 28th August, 1958. However, the appellant was acquitted by the Lahore High Court vide judgment, dated 16th March, 1965 passed by his Lordship Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed. Thereafter, the appellant was reinstated in service on 20th August, 1965, after remaining under suspen sion for a period of 7 years i. e., 28th August, 1958 to 19th August, 1965. Later on an enquiry was conducted by Mr. S.M. Naeem, the then Executive Engineer, 3rd Provincial Buildings Division, Lahore and Mr. Muhammad Humayun Executive Engineer, III‑Provincial Buildings Division, Lahore. The suspension period w.e.f. 28th August, 1958 to 19th August, 1965 of the appellant was not allowed on duty vide order, dated 19th January, 1984 of the Superintending Engineer, 3rd Provincial Building Circle, Lahore. The appellant filed an appeal against this order to the Chief Engineer, North Zone, Buildings Department, Lahore which was rejected vide order, dated 10th April, 1984. The contention of the appellant is that he is entitled to be treated on duty for the period from 28th August, 1958 to 19th August, 1965 (suspension period) and the impugned order, dated 10th April, 1984 is illegal. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties i.e., Mr. Ahmad Awais, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A. G. Humayun, District Attorney on behalf of the respondents.

9. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the 'appellant was acquitted by the Lahore High Court vide their judgment dated 16th March, 1965 and thus the appellant is entitled for the full benefits of the pay etc. for the period daring which the appellant remained under sus pension i.e., 28th August, 1958 to 19th August, 1965. The plea of the learned counsel for the appellant is that after the acquittal of the appellant by the Lahore High Court there is no justification for the respondents for not considering and allowing the above suspension period on duty. The respondents have acted against the rules. The impugned orders being arbitrary be quashed.

6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has submitted that the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 16th Mach, 1965 has been honoured and fully implemented as the appellant was reinstated in service on 20th August, 1965. As far as treating of suspension period from 28th August, 1958 to 19th August, 1965 on duty is concerned, he has refer red to the impugned order, dated 19th January. 1984 (Annexure "F") of the competent authority wherein it has been clearly held that the enquiries had been conducted against the appellant and as a result of these enquiries the appellant was not considered eligible for treating the suspension period on duty. Thus, the case of the‑ appellant has been dealt under the rules. As he was not eligible for the relief which he is seeking, could not be given as per facts of the case. He has further pointed out that the Chief Engineer, North Zone, Buildings Department, Lahore has also examined the case in detail and rejected his plea for the arrear of pay during the suspension period as it did not merit under the circumstances and rules.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record of this case very carefully. We find that the appellant was reinstated on 20th August, 1965 in view of the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 16th March, 1965 passed by his Lordship Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed. The grievance of the appellant is that the suspension period from 28th August, 1958 to 19th August, 1965 be treated on duty. We have gone through the office Order No. 23, dated 19th January, 1984 issued by the Superintending Engineer, 3rd Provincial Building Circle, Lahore (Competent Authority) which is repro duced below :‑ "Keeping into account the decision, dated 16th March, 1965 of appeal No. 238 of 1962 announced by Lahore High Court and the enquiries conducted by Mr. S. M. Naeem the then Executive Engineer, 3rd Provincial Buildings Division, Lahore and Mr. Muhammad Huma yun Khan, Executive Engineer, 3rd‑Provincial Buildings Division Lahore as `Authorized Officer' the suspension period of Mirza Muhammad Akbar, Sub‑Engineer from 28th August, 1958 to 19th August, 1965 may not be considered as duty period. The Sub-Engineer is not allowed to draw the balance pay for suspension period except subsistance allowances." The above facts narrated in the above order clearly show that the appellant was not considered eligible for duty for the suspension period keeping in view the enquiries conducted against him. We also agree, with the com petent authority/the learned District Attorney that under the circumstances of the case, the appellant is not entitled for the arrears of the suspension period as claimed by him.

8. The result of the above analysis of the ease is that there is no merits in this appeal which is dismissed as such There are no order as to costs. A. E Appeal dismissed.