1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SARDAR ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑‑Imtiaz Ahmad, Sub‑Engineer, 1st Provincial Buildings Division, Rawalpindi (under suspension), has filed this appeal, u/s 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act,1974, against his suspension so ordered by Respondent No.2, vide his order dated 13‑7‑1986. He has impleaded the Secretary, Communication and Works Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore, and the Superintending Engineer, 1st Provincial Buildings Circle, Rawalpindi, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order be set aside as the same is unjustified as well as based on ulterior reasons than the judicial grounds.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant who is serving as Sub‑Engineer, 1st Provincial Bldgs Division, Rawalpindi was directed vide letter dated 6‑7‑86, Annexure/ C to reply within 72 hours and to produce photostat copy of registration of CAR‑LHB‑846, which according to him the said car was in his possession. The appellant replied on 7‑7‑86, that he was having no car of such number and make. Unsatisfied with this reply the matter was referred by the superintending Engineer to the Chief Engineer, who vide his endorsement permitted to take action against him, if he disobeyed his order. However, the appellant is facing inquiry on the following charges:‑ (1) Holding a Toyota Car. (2) His children were getting education in Lawrence College, Ghora Gali, Murree; (3) Was living beyond his known income of Rs.1,200 PM.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and Mr. Ifzal Hussain Qureshi, Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondents and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been suspended for disobeying the order which was conveyed to him on 6‑7‑1986, whereas this is factually incorrect as compliance was made on 7‑7‑1986, without any delay. It has been further submitted that suspension is a final order for the purpose of punishment against which a grievance can be made before this Tribunal. He has relied on NLR 1985 TD. He has however, not contested the action of the Department regarding inquiry which the appellant is facing and has only submitted that this may also be completed within the stipulated period as envisaged under the rules.

6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that in fact the appellant filed appeal against the order dated 13‑7‑86 and not against the order dated 6‑7‑1986, which was not an order of suspension but the order is dated 13‑7‑1986. It has been submitted that the appellant has sought two remedies one before the Departmental authority and other before the Tribunal, his appeal would be incompetent.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the objection regarding maintainability of appeal is untenable on the simple ground that the very reading of the order dated 13‑7‑1986, discloses that it was on Teleprinter Message No.44‑ELB/79/1451‑E(2), dated 6‑7‑86, which permitted suspension of the appellant. This being so the appellant was rightly aggrieved against the said teleprinter message dt.6‑7‑86, therefore, the appeal would be competent under the circumstances. As far as the objection that the appellant cannot seek two remedies, this Tribunal finds that the appellant has withdrawn the departmental appeal and is seeking relief from this Tribunal.

8. While disposing of these two legal objections so raised by the learned counsel for the respondent, this Tribunal is of the considered pinion that the reasons for suspension are unjustified as the appellant has complied with the order of his superior without any delay. This Tribunal cannot remain oblivious of the fact that it is very unusual on the part of the respondents that a Senior Counsel appeared from Lahore, engaged by the Superintending Engineer, 1st Provincial Bldgs. Circle, Rawalpindi whereas the District Attorney is always available to defend Government Respondent. He shall have to incur extra expenditure for this exercise of litigation with a subordinate. This Tribunal would like that this should be highlighted by sending a copy of this judgment to the Minister for Communication and Works and Secretary, Communication & Works, Punjab, to take a notice of this sort of action on the part of the Superintending Engineer, 1st Provincial Bldgs. Circle, Rawalpindi, Respondent No.2.

9. In view of the above discussion and relying on Supreme Court ruling mentioned in the earlier part of our judgment, we proceed to set aside the suspension order as without any justification The appellant will face the inquiry which he is facing before the Department with the direction to the Department to conclude the same within a stipulated period so that personal venom should not prevail in delaying the said inquiry. The appellant is reinstated in service from the date he was so suspended with all back benefits. There will be no order as to costs. Announced in the open Court on 28‑10‑1986, at Rawalpindi Circuit. Judgment be released to the parties. A. E./51/Sr.P?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted.