1984 PLP (C (PLC)

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑Ali Hasan Shah has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Director‑General Agriculture (Ext.) Punjab, Lahore, Director of Agriculture (Ext.) Lahore, Deputy Director Agriculture, Lahore Division and Extra‑Assistant Director of Agriculture, Sheikhupura, as respondents. 2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order dated 28th April, 1981 be set aside and appellant be granted pay etc. for the period of suspension treating the judgment passed in his favour by Magistrate, 1st Class of honourable acquittal on account of benefit of doubt. Hence this appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a dacoity took place in the office of Extra‑Assistant Director of Agriculture, Sheikhupura in between the night of 2/3 September, 1973. The appellant the then Junior Clerk/Cashier in that office was involved in the said case and was arrested. On account of his arrest he was placed under suspension on 3rd September, 1973. Later on he was released by the Sessions Judge and High Court on 20th October, 1973 and 29th November, 1973 respectively. He was tried in the Court of Agba Javed Hussain, Magistrate 1st Class, Sheikhupura, who vide his judgment passed on 17th July, 1979 acquitted the appellant. The respondents after the receipt of the judgment re‑instated the appellant in service from 1st September, 1979. The appellant has been getting his J pay during his suspension period as subsistence allowance. The competent authority did not allow the benefit of full pay during the period under suspension. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the parawise comments so submitted by the Director Agriculture (Ext.) one of the respondent in this case. 5. We have given our anxious thought to all the arguments so advanced and the only point for adjudication before us is whether the competent authority could withhold J pay which according to the appellant was his entitlement as he stood re‑instated in service after acquittal order passed in his favour by the competent Court of Law. For this we have looked into rule 7.3 of C. S. R. Vol. I, Part I, and Government letter No. S(R) 1‑13/58‑S. O. XIII, dated 10th January, 1959 and find that the competent authority has been vested with the powers to withhold the pay or any other emoluments, if the acquittal of a civil servant involved in criminal case, was not honourable. Similarly it is also incorporated in the above‑mentioned rules that authority in this regard to make such decision, would be the competent authority fact fully endorsed by Government. of Punjab, Finance Department's letter No. 954‑SO(SR) IV/72, dated 2nd June, 1972. 6. With regard to the judgment in question, we have perused the said judgment and find that the learned Magistrate while concluding the case in favour of the appellant observed as under:‑

"I, therefore, giving benefit of doubt to the present accused acquit them under section 245, C. P. C. The case against the absconding accused shall be taken up at their arrest." The language in this respect indicated above, is absolutely clear and it cannot be said that the appellant was acquitted honourably by the Court of Law.

7. In view of the above, we do not find any merits in this appeal and uphold the impugned order in its entirety. However, parties will be at their own costs. M. I. Appeal dismissed.