ORDER SAYED MEHAR HUSSAIN SHAH, MEMBER--- The above Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the Petitioner, requesting for implementation of the judgment of this Tribunal dated 2.6.2009 passed in Appeal No. 221(K)CS/2005. Notice of the MP was issued to the respondent-department.
2. This Tribunal, vide judgment dated 2.6.2009, held set aside the impugned order dated 1.6.2005 whereby major penalty of removal from service was imposed upon Iftikhar. Ahmed, respondent herein. He was ordered to be reinstated and de novo inquiry was ordered to be held under the law within the period of 120 days from the date of receipt of the judgment, It may be pertinent to mention here that earlier respondent-Iftikhar Ahmed was dismissed from service 8.11.2001 which was challenged before the Tribunal and he was ordered to be reinstated in service by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 28.11.2004, remanding the matter back to the department for de novo proceedings to be completed within a period of six months. This is the second round of litigation.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and departmental representatives, representing the Department.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner submitted his joining report to the department on 18.6,2009 and he was allowed to join the duties by the. Department vide letter dated 30.6.2009, reinstating the Petitioner i.e.f 17.6.2009. He contended that the department allowed joining duty to the Petitioner and 'conducted the inquiry, the inquiry committee had since Concluded the departmental proceedings against the Petitioner, It was argued that as per judgment of the Tribunal, period of 120 days was given to the department which since expired on 1.10.2009, and the department till date has not issued any kind of order in the departmental case of the Petitioner for decision of the period. He further contended that the Petitioner in order to get implementation of the said judgment of the Tribunal, moved application on 6.11.2009 also not implemented the judgment of this Tribunal in letter and spirit and failed to conclude/complete the de novo departmental inquiry against the petitioner within 120 days which expired on 16.10.2009! He vehemently argued that as the question of back benefits was also dependent on the out-come of the de novo proceedings, which having not been completed within 120 days, petitioner is entitled to get the judgment of this Tribunal implemented, which amounted to pay disrespect to the sanctity and authority of the Tribunal by not executing the said judgment in its true sense and period from 1.9.2001 to 3.11.2004 and 1.6.2005 to 17.6.2009 have also not been treated as spent on duty as per judgment dated 2.6.2009 He finally argued that the petitioner is entitled to payment of dues i.e.f.
1.9.2001 to 3.11.2004 and from 1.6.2005 to 17.6.2009 when the petitioner was kept waiting for duty by the respondents and was kept away for performing service with. No fault on his part, petitioner is also entitled to back benefits for the period referred to above, as the respondents failed to conduct and complete the de novo departmental proceedings within 120 days against the Petitioner nothing on record which shows that any effort was made by the department to complete the said de novo proceedings within 120 days. We find that as the de novo proceedings, which ought to have been completed before 16.10.2009, having not been completed, the Petitioner is entitled to be paid the back benefits, when he was kept out of service either by way of dismissal or by way of keeping him waiting for duty.
6. In view of the above, the department is directed to implement the judgment of the Tribunal dated 2.6.2009 in letter and spirit and they are also directed to pay back benefits to the petitioner, which were dependent on the outcome of the de novo proceedings, which de novo proceedings having not been completed within the time frame, provided in the said judgment.
7. MP stands disposed of. Parties be informed.