2000 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ABDUL HAMEED KHAN KHATTAK (MEMBER). ‑‑‑This appeal is although apparently directed against the order dated 8‑8‑1998 passed by the respondent whereby appellant's request for reinstatement was turned down but as a matter of fact this appeal is directed against the order, dated 14‑3‑1993 whereby appellant was dismissed from service on the allegation of misconduct.

2. Brief facts are that the appellant who was serving as A.L.M. in WAPDA Mardan was transferred to Swabi on 20‑12‑1992 but he refused to join there rather he mis-conducted by abusing senior officers and marked himself present in his office at Mardan although he had been relieved from duty from there since 26‑12‑1992 and after issuance of show‑cause notice for various allegations and holding of‑inquiry he was dismissed from service on.14‑3‑1993 and thereafter, he challenged his dismissal order by bringing Appeal No. 203(P) of 1993 before this forum which was disposed of on 28‑11‑1993 by converting his dismissal order into removal from service and the relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under:

3. The appellant had, however, realised and requested that he would not press the appeal on merits, but he would pray for reduction in punishment for which the learned counsel for the respondent's department had expressed no objection, if the Tribunal converted the punishment of dismissal into removal.

4. After hearing the parties, we find that the order of dismissal was harsh for the young man who had only started his career and was dismissed on account of misconduct. We accordingly set aside the impugned order and modify the punishment of dismissal from service into that of removal. "

3. Admittedly none of the parties assailed the order dated 28‑11‑1993 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court meaning thereby the said judgment had attained finality.

4. It transpired that a criminal case was also registered against the appellant by the respondent under sections 506 and 186, P.P.C. vide F.I.R. No. 84, dated 2‑2‑1993 for having issued threatened of dire consequences to Muhammad Israr, complainant, an employee of WAPDA and also having quarrelled with him, the said criminal case was decided on 13‑11‑1994 and as a result the appellant was acquitted under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. It appears that after his acquittal in that criminal case, the appellant moved the respondent for his reinstatement but his such request was turned down on 8‑8‑1998 and the present appeal apparently seems to have been preferred against that order but the fact remains that his dismissal order, date 14‑3‑1993 which was subsequently converted into removal from service by the judgment of this Tribunal dated 28‑11‑1993 has been assailed as still both orders (of the respondent and of this Tribunal), referred to above, are holding field and so long as those orders which have attained finality are not set aside, how can the appellant be reinstated into service but admittedly neither the appellant nor the respondent assailed the judgment of this Tribunal dated 28‑11‑1993 at higher forum hence, on that very score this appeal is incompetent being barred by the doctrine of res judicata. It is to be noted that this appeal was preferred as late as 5‑9‑1998. The earlier judgment of this Tribunal having attained finality cannot be reopened on any score. The acquittal of appellant in criminal case legally has no effect at all upon the departmental proceedings culminating in his dismissal order as besides the allegations given in the F.I.R., there were also other four charges leveled against him in the show‑cause notice served upon him, thus, his acquittal in that case could not provide a fresh cause of action to the appellant. Resultantly the appeal being hit by the principle of res judicata is hereby dismissed with costs.

5. Copies of the judgment be sent to all the concerned through registered post. H.B.T./321/FST. Appeal dismissed.