1984 PLP (C (PLC)

Ch. Mushtaq Masood for Appellant. A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents. S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑-‑ The appellant has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the respondents as mentioned above.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the Memo. No. E. B.‑I/103/M, dated 5th January, 1984 issued by the Commissioner Gujranwala and the consequential dismissal order, dated 19th February, 1984 issued by respondent No. 2 are illegal, without lawful authority which be set aside and the appellant be reinstated in service.

3. The appeal is still at the stage of preliminary hearing.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length who has submitted that the appellant was convicted under section 161, P. P. C. read with section 5 (2) 47 of the P. C. A. and sentenced to two months' R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 in default whereof to undergo further R. I. for fifteen days by the Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, Punjab, Lahore vide his order, dated 28th March, 1983. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant filed an appeal against the above order before the Lahore High Court which finally came up for hearing before his Lordship Mr. Justice Khalil‑ur‑Rehman on 3rd September, 1983. The appeal was admitted and the appellant was granted bail. It was further submitted that the appellant resumed his duties and got the arrears of his pay for the period the appellant remained behind the bars. Appellant's counsel further submitted that the Commissioner Gujranwala vide order, dated 5th January, 1984 directed the Deputy Commissioner Gujranwala that the patwaris and other officials should be dismissed from service from the date of their conviction in spite of the fact that their appeals were pending and had been bailed out by the Honourable High Court.

5. The main point of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the said direction of Commissioner Gujranwala are void ab initio, as the appeal is pending before the High Court in continuation of the original proceedings, therefore, the grant of bail should be equated, as no conviction.

6. We have taken into consideration the arguments of the appellant's counsel, as well as of our earlier judgment (Muhammad Saeed v. Board of Revenue) dated 14th June, 1983 in which a similar question came before this Tribunal for adjudication. We have clearly held that once the Govern ment servant is convicted by the Court of competent jurisdiction he will be considered convict for all purposes and would not be entitled to remain in service till he is acquitted by the appellate authority. 1n the present case as well as in the case of Saeed Ahmad it has been found that the judgment of the trial Court was never suspended and it was only that the appeal was admitted to regular bearing and the appellant as well as Saeed Ahmad was allowed to remain on bail.

7. In view of the above we are of the considered opinion that the case is liable to be dismissed in limine as we hold that the appellant is a convict. It will be useful to mention here that the counsel of Saeed Ahmad was present in the Court, during the course of argument of this case and informed the Tribunal that he did not file any appeal against the judgment of this Tribunal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan but instead is pursuing his appeal before the High Court, to get the case decided one way or the other. However there will be no order as to costs. M.I Appeal dismissed.