1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Hafiz Tariq Naseem for Respondents. Date of hearing : 27th September, 1983. ABDUR RASHID (MEMBER).‑Facts of the case, briefly, are that the appellant was involved in a case of defalcation of funds. He was committed to the prison but later on enlarged on bail. His case is awaiting adjudication before Anti‑Corruption Judge.

2. He was under suspension upto 20th September, 1980. On 21st September, 1980, he filed a joining report on the plea that his period of suspension having expired, he was entitled to resume duty for which he sought appropriate orders. Thereafter, the office order dated 30th September, 1980 was issued by the Assistant Director (Administration), Central Directorate of National Savings, Islamabad, whereby the period of suspension of the appellant was extended from 21st September, 1980 to 20th December, 1980.

3. The appellant preferred a departmental appeal on 12th October, 1980 against the impugned order of his extension of suspension period dated 30th September, 1980. He received no reply whereafter he preferred his present appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, on 18th January, 1981.

4. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant who, while arguing, said that in the light of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973; the departmental order dated 30th September, 1980 extending the period of suspension of the appellant from 21st September, 1980 to 20th December, 1980 was given a retrospective effect and was, therefore, void ab initio, apart from the fact that the said order has been initiated by the Joint Director and not the Authorised Officer, who in this case. was the Deputy Chief Director and that there was no approval of the Chief Director who was the competent authority. The learned counsel for the respondents, in reply, said that the appellant stood suspended automatically under Article 194 (reproduced below) of the Civil Service Regulations and that if the depart ment had issued any suspension order and then extended it whether retros pectively or prospectively, it was quite meaningless. Rule 5 of the Govern ment Servants (Efficiency and. Discipline) Rules, 1973, came into force only after the departmental proceedings had been set in motion. In any case, the suspension had been ordered after obtaining the approval of the Chief Director and that this was borne out from the record. Articles 194 and 194‑A of the Civil Service Regulation read; "

194. A servant of Government committed to prison either for debt or on a criminal charge should be considered as under suspension from the date of his arrest, and not allowed to draw any pay until the termina tion of the proceedings against him, when an adjustment of his allow ances should be made according to the circumstances of the case, the full amount being given only in the event of the officer being acquitted of blame or (if the imprisonment was for debt), of its being proved that the officer's liability arose from circumstances beyond his control. 194‑A. A servant of Government against whom a criminal charge or a proceeding for arrest for debt is pending should also be placed under suspension by the issue of specific orders to this 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 in volves moral turpitude. In regard to his pay and allowances, the pro visions of Article 194 shall apply."

5. Considering pros and cons of the arguments from both sides, we have come to the conclusion that rule 5 (1) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, does not apply in this case for the simple reason that the appellant had yet to be proceeded against depart mentally. He stood suspended automatically under Article 194 of the Civil Service Regulations and his pay and allowances were to be regulates accordingly. However, as the appellant was now on bail, the department should issue a suspension order under Article 194‑A of the Civil Service Regulations, effective from the date of bail, to complete the technical formality. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. A.E Appeal dismissed.