' SYED QALB-I-HASSAN, J.---- Brief facts relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was an employee of respondent and was charge-sheeted on 7-8-2003 under the provisions of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 on the ground that she has absented herself from duty without any leave from the competent authority. An inquiry was conducted and she was dismissed from service vide order, dated 2-1-2004. Her departmental appeal dated 14-1-2004 was rejected on 17-2-2004 and thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal against her dismissal in Federal Service Tribunal. The Tribunal partly accepted the appeal of the petitioner. The concluding paragraph of the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal reads as follows:--- "There is no gainsaying the fact that the appellant had remained absent from duty without permission. She had not reported for treatment to the Medical Centre of the respondent- Corporation. Thus, misconduct was committed by her but for this misconduct, she deserves lesser penalty. We accordingly accept the appeal to this extent that the penalty of dismissal from service is converted into stoppage of annual increments of the appellant for a period of four years."
"There shall be no order as to costs. Parties be informed."
2. The petitioner filed Civil Petition No,1400 of 2005 against the judgment being not satisfied with the relief given by the Federal Service Tribunal, whereas the respondents had also filed Civil Petition No,1347 of 2005 against the same judgment. That during the pendency of both the above said civil petitions before the Honourable Supreme Court, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for the implementation of judgment of Federal Service Tribunal passed on 12-1-2005. The civil petition filed by the respondent was dismissed for non-prosecution on 16-10-2008 and the petitioner on the dismissal of the civil petition filed by the respondent did not press the petition the by her and the same was disposed of having not been pressed for the time being.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petition filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal was dismissed for non-prosecution, therefore, judgment of the learned Federal Service. Tribunal has attained finality and the respondents are bound to implement the same in letter and spirit.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently contested the petition and contended that both the parties have assailed the impugned judgment and in view of the law laid down in Muhammad Mubeen-ulIslam and others v. Federal of Pakistan PLD 2006 SC 602, the judgment of the learned Federal Service Tribunal has been abated; therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner was charge-sheeted under the provisions of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and as a result of inquiry, she was dismissed from service vide order, dated 2-1-2004.
' Her departmental appeal was rejected on 17-2-2004 and she filed an appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Both the parties filed their respective civil petitions against the impugned judgment of Federal Service Tribunal and the petitions were fixed on 16-10-2008. Civil petition filed by the respondent was dismissed for non-prosecution and the petitioner on the dismissal of the civil petition filed by the respondent did not press the petition filed by her and the same was not pressed for the time being and in this view of the matter, judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal has attained finality to the extent of relief allowed to the petitioner.
7. The petitioner was dismissed from service under section 3 of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance and she filed the departmental appeal under section 9 of the above said Ordinance. Her appeal was rejected on 20-2-2004 and she filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal under section 10 of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance which reads as under:--- Appeal.--- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any person aggrieved by any final order under section 9 may, within thirty days of the order, prefer an appeal to the Federal Service Tribunal established under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 (LXX of 1973): ' Provided that where a representation or review petition has been preferred under section 9 but no decision has been received by, or communicated to the applicant or, as the case may be, petitioner, within a period of sixty days of its submission to the prescribed authority, he may prefer appeal to the Service Tribunal within thirty days of the expiry of the aforesaid period."
8.Now in my humble opinion and with profound respect, the ' above said dictum in Muhammad Mubeen-ul-Islam and others v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2006 SC 602 is not attracted in the present case. She was proceeded under the provisions of Removal from Service (Special Powers)
Ordinance and she has filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal under section 10 of above said Ordinance. The Federal Service Tribunal passed the judgment with jurisdiction and on the dismissal of the civil petition filed by the respondent in Honourable Supreme Court, the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal has attained finality, therefore, the respondents are bound to implement the judgment passed by the Federal Service Tribunal in letter and spirit.
9.In view of the above said, respondents are directed to implement the judgment passed by the Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No,482(R)(C.E.) of 2004 dated 12-1-2005 within a period of two months with intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.
Writ .