2010 PLP 169 (SCMR)

SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.

Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division seeks review of this Court judgment dated 12-6-2008, whereby, Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.662 of 2008, after conversion into appeal (C.A. No.558 of 2008) was disposed of in terms that impugned judgment dated 6-6-2008 of the Federal Service Tribunal was set aside and respondent Shahid Hayat was allowed to serve for a period of two years and three months, equivalent to the interrupted period of his service from November, 1996 to February, 1999. The Government was directed to take appropriate measures in this regard. The benefit of such judgment was also extended to other police officers who were implicated along with the petitioner in the criminal case in question.

2. Shahid Hayat, respondent being a police- officer, was involved in a criminal case. Through the judgment under review, he was given the benefit of his interrupted service, which he was allowed to continue.

3. After having heard Mr. Shah Khawar, learned Deputy Attorney-General for the petitioner Government and Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, learned counsel for Shahid Hayat, respondent, we have observed that the respondent has been given the benefit of extended service to the above extent beyond the period of superannuation. This is in direct conflict with the provisions of section 13(1)(i) and (ii) of Civil Servants Act, 1973. No cogent reasons have been advanced as to why such provisions of an existing law are avoided except for the reason that conduct meted out to the respondent Shahid Hayat was violative of Articles 9, 18, 25 and 27 of the Constitution. We are of the considered view that the suspension of civil servant, if involved in a criminal case or otherwise, is already provided in law which has a complete mechanism of its own. So, a civil servant proceeded against under disciplinary laws cannot be said to have been dealt with in derogation of Article 25 etcetera of the Constitution, related to fundamental rights. The order in question needs to be reviewed, for, it runs counter to section 13 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973.

4. The order under review is most likely to open a Pandora box of litigation because any civil servant having ever been suspended for a certain period of time would come to the Court claiming the extension of service for the interrupted period involved, despite the fact that he might have been dealt with by the department in accordance with the law and despite the fact that his case has become a past and closed transaction.

5. Another important repercussion of the judgment under review would be that any competent authority would be reluctant and feel seriously hesitant to proceed against a civil servant, because the latter would claim extension in service even if there is genuine delay in the disposal of his case. The strong possibility cannot be ruled out that civil servants will manoeuvre their suspension and delay in disciplinary process in order to gain the benefit' thereof after superannuation.

6. When faced with all these questions, Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, learned counsel for Shahid Hayat, respondent opted to withdraw Civil Petition No.662 of 2008 converted into Civil Appeal No.558 of 2008. Consequently, the review petition is accepted, the judgment dated 12-6-2008, passed in Civil Appeal No.558 of 2008 is set aside and C.P.L.A. No.662 of 2008 is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. S.A.K./F-17/SC Petition accepted.