ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has set aside a judgment of the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa military court and ordered authorities to re-examine the case of a reinstated teacher for return benefits under Fundamental Rule (FR) 54.
The court ruled that an employee honorably acquitted of criminal charges is entitled to full salary and benefits for the period of absence, subject to a lawful determination by the appropriate authority.
The ruling was written by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, with Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi also on the bench, in a civil appeal arising from a 2019 ruling by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Military Tribunal, Swat Camp Court.
The appellant, Mian Abdul Saeed, a secondary school teacher (BPS-17) posted at Gokand Government High School in Buner district, was suspended on December 31, 2012 after he was implicated in an FIR under sections 302, 324, 147, 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
He was later convicted by an additional district judge in Buner on December 19, 2013, leading to his dismissal on July 6, 2015. However, on appeal, the Peshawar High Court (PHC) acquitted him on December 11, 2017.
Following his acquittal, he requested reinstatement as well as return compensation. The departmental authority reinstated him by order of April 19, 2018 but denied him arrears of benefits and treated the interim period as unpaid leave.
His appeal to the Military Court was only partially upheld, maintaining the refusal of return allowances and equating the period of absence with leave of the kind due, which prompted him to approach the Supreme Court.
At the clearance stage, the apex court considered whether a public servant honorably acquitted of criminal charges was entitled to full compensation under FR 54.
During the proceedings, counsel for the appellant argued that once a public servant is acquitted, he is entitled to full salary and benefits as if he had never been discharged.
It was argued that the appellant’s dismissal was based solely on his conviction and that no departmental inquiry had been conducted. Therefore, the denial of return benefits was illegal and contrary to the Basic Rules.
The Additional Advocate General of the KP submitted that since the petitioner had not actually performed his duties during the interim period, he was not entitled to retrospective compensation and that period was rightly considered as leave without pay.
He further submitted that under Section 17 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Service Act, 1973, the competent authority had discretionary power to grant the arrears. After reviewing the record, the Supreme Court noted that the appellant was initially suspended after his arrest and then removed from service after being found guilty.
