2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Petitioner in person. Barrister Ch. Muhammad Jameel, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 10th January, 2002. JAVED IQBAL, J

Petitioner Saboor Ahmad has impugned the judgment dated 8-3-2000 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed in Sui Northern Gas Company Limited in 1995 and his services were terminated on 15-4‑1998 on account of absence from duty. The petitioner was arrested by the Quetta Police in a case got registered against him under section 302, P.P.C. on 25‑5‑1997 and he could not perform his official duties due to detention and his services were resultantly terminated after payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice with effect from 25‑5‑1997. The petitioner was acquitted from the case registered against him by learned Sessions Judge, Quetta, vide judgment dated 18‑6‑1998 and in consequence thereof the petitioner was reinstated in service and the period of absence was treated as 'special leave without pay. The petitioner being aggrieved preferred a departmental appeal on 18‑9‑1998 on the ground that he was entitled to pay and allowances for the period of absence which, however, was not responded and learned Federal Service Tribunal was approached by way of Appeal No.25(Q)/1998 which has been dismissed, hence this petition.

3. Heard Saboor Ahmad, petitioner in person who mainly contended that the period of absence could not have been treated as special leave without pay because he was got involved in a false and concocted case and finally acquitted. It is next contended that it was beyond his competency to perform official duties during the period of his detention.

4. We have carefully examined the contention as agitated by the petitioner in the light of relevant provisions of law and record‑of the case. We have minutely perused the impugned judgment. It is to be noted that petitioner was reinstated by means of order dated 31‑8‑1998 which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:‑‑ '"You are advised that you will not be entitled for Casual/Privilege and Sick Leave for the period of your absence up to and including 31‑8‑1998 as you have not earned this same. However as a special case your absence is being condoned through Special Leave without pay up to and including 31‑8‑1998. Please treat our Letter No.DO/SG:3121/357 dated 15‑4‑1998 and Discharge Certificate No.355 dated 15‑4‑1998 as cancelled." A bare perusal would reveal that his reinstatement was conditional and period of absence of petitioner (15‑9‑1997 to 31‑8‑1998) was treated as "Special leave without pay" and rightly so as the petitioner had no casual or earned leave at his credit and accordingly the question of salary and other benefits for the said period does not arise. The finding of facts recorded by the department duly upheld by the learned Federal Service Tribunal has not been shown to have suffered from any legal infirmity or non‑consideration of any material piece of evidence. Besides that no question of public importance is involved in the matter and ordinarily this Court does not interfere with a concurrent finding of fact given by Departmental Authority and Service Tribunal. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in cases' titled Muhammad Munir Ahmad v. Water and Power Development Authority (1990 SCMR 907), Munir Ahmad v. Punjab Service Tribunal (1990 SCMR 1005), Faiz Ahmad v. Deputy Postmaster‑General, Lahore and others (1991 SCMR 368), Muhammad Binyamin v. Water and Power Development Authority (1991 SCMR 383). In the light of foregoing discussion the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. S.A.K./S‑167/S Petition dismissed.