1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Appellant in person. Chaudhry Rashid Ahmad for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th March, 1990. SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH (CHAIRMAN).--Appellant Muhammad Munawar, a Section Controller, Pakistan Railways, was a Station Master, Pakistan Railways, Damboli (Patt Section of Balochistan Province) in the years 1979 and 1980. He was involved in two criminal cases registered at Sibbi Police Station in the year 1980. He was arrested in connection therewith in the same year. He was placed under suspension on 10-12-1983 and he remained under suspension for indefinite period without any trial. He was challaned in the Court of Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Sibbi in one case. He was challaned in another case in the Court of Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Quetta. He was dragged in the Courts to face trial but to no end. Feeling frustrated he made several representation for his reinstatement in service but to no avail. He filed this appeal on 14-4-1986 praying that directions may be issued for withdrawing orders of his illegal suspension with his reinstatement in service. He also prayed for payments of his full wages for the intervening period.

2. The appellant argued the appeal himself. He stated the events of his suspension and his involvement in the cases and his prosecution before the Courts. His main contention was that his suspension for indefinite period, except three months only, was illegal and he was, therefore, supposed to be on duty after the expiry of three months of his suspension and he placed reliance on the decision of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, in writ petition No.6/88. He also relied upon the judgments of Punjab Labour Court in petition No.12/85; and Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal in appeal No.BR-558/85-Punjab.

3. The respondents have contested the appeal contending that the appellant was suspended on account of his involvement in criminal cases and the case of his suspension was not required to be reviewed after every three months, as contended by the appellant. They have also contended that the appeal is not only time-barred but is also not maintainable as it was filed without preferring departmental appeal. The learned counsel appearing on their behalf urged the same grounds and also added that review of the period of suspension after every three months is required only in the cases where the proceedings have been taken under the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973, but no such review is required if the order of suspension is made consequent to involvement in a criminal case. He made reference to the instructions on the subject published in ESTACODE at page 373 onwards. He also made reference to the provisions of Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual 1980.

4. The appellant has challenged his suspension for indefinite period without its review after every three months by the authority. He seems to have taken this plea on the basis of Rule 5 of Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973, providing that where a Government Servant is accused of subversion, corruption or misconduct, the authorised officer may require him to proceed on leave, or with the approval of the authority suspend him, provided that any continuation of such leave or suspension shall require approval of the authority after every three months. But the appellant was not suspended under the provisions of the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973. He was placed under suspension on account of his involvement in criminal cases, and his suspension was deemed to be under the provisions of Civil Service Regulation 194-A, which lays down that a servant of Government against whom a criminal charge or proceeding for arrest for debt is pending should be placed under suspension by the issue of specific orders to the effect during periods when he is not actually detained in custody or imprisoned (e.g. whilst released on bail) if the charge made or proceeding taken against him is connected with his position as a Government servant or is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties as such or involves moral turpitude. The cases against the appellant were connected with the discharge of his duties as a Station Master. The allegations against him were that a goods train had stopped at the railway station, Damboli where he was on duty, and a goods wagon was detached and its contents were pilferred/stolen and he was an accomplice in the affair. Thus, his suspension beyond the period of three months without its review after every three months did not offend any provision of law, rather it was in accordance with law. Of course, the decision of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, in writ petition No.6/88, relied upon by him, supports his contention but, with utmost regard for the decision, we are unable to subscribe to that view for the reasons recorded above that the appellant's case was governed by the provisions of CSR-194-A, which does not require review of the suspension order after every three months. Similarly, we are unable to subscribe to the view adopted by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal in appeal No.BR-558/85-Punjab, with due regard for its decision. However, we cannot resist mentioning that the appellant's detention for indefinite period which ran into years should have received at least sympathetic consideration of the authorities. He did actually make desperate efforts to appeal to the conscience of the concerned authorities and submitted no objection certificate from the Courts for putting him on duty and yet he was not extended humanitarian consideration. He did also face misfortune of delay in the disposal of the cases filed against him. At last, ray of hope dawned upon him and the case challaned in the Court of Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Sibbi was decided on 1-1-1985 and he was discharged; and the other case challaned in the Court of Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Quetta was decided on 17-9-1987 and in that case too he was discharged. Even I hen, he remained under suspension and it was stated before us by the appellant that he was reinstated in service on 20-6-1988. However, these circumstances do not advance his case before us but they may impress the concerned authorities while determining the nature of the period he remained under suspension. Thus, the appeal is without merit.

5. The respondents have also taken the plea that the appeal is not only time-barred but it is also not maintainable otherwise as there is no final order which could be impugned before the Tribunal. In this context, it may be mentioned that the appellant was placed under suspension in one case on 10-12-1983 and another suspension order was also passed on 26-3-1986 seemingly in connection with another case. He preferred this appeal on 14-4-1986. The respondents have placed on record a copy of letter dated 25-8-1986 from the Divisional Superintendent that the appellant may be put on duty and the compliance intimation was sent on 21-9-1986. The respondents have placed on record another order of suspension of the appellant dated 17-11-1987. The appellant went on making representations and applications one of the applications was made by him on 2-1-1986. He has filed its copy as Annexure `M'. It was probably in the context of that application that order for his reinstatement was issued by the Divisional Superintendent on 25-8-1986 but the appeal was filed earlier. If the application dated 2-1-1986 which was addressed to the Prime Minister, Minister for Justice, Minister for Interior and the Minister for Railways were treated as appeal/representation against the order of suspension, the appeal filed on 14-4-1986 was within the period of limitation by giving the condonation of 90 days for awaiting decision on the representation. It thus appears that the departmental representation was actually made and the appeal filed thereafter within the period of 120 days is not time-barred. Both the objections raised by the respondents thus stand met with.

6. For the reasons recorded above the suspension of the appellant did not suffer from any illegality, the appeal merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. M.Y.H./594/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.