Moazzam Hayat, Member, J.--Appellant Shahid Mehmood Bashir is Deputy Director (Budget & Accounts) in the Pakistan Medical Research Council. When he filed the present appeal he was under suspension. He had made a claim for payment of his G.P. Fund according to the rules. It appears that his request was neither granted nor refused. However, he was not paid his G.P. Fund.
Hence this appeal.
2. The Finance Division is Respondent No,
3. It is of the view that the appeal of the appellant should not be resisted. It is clearly stated in its comments that G.P. Fund cannot be forfeited and the individual can withdraw it from its accumulation at the time of need according to the procedure as laid down in G.P. Fund Service Rules. It is further stated in the comments that there are no logical grounds to defend the case and the G.P. Fund Advance can be awarded to the appellant as per his request.
3. The Respondents No, 1 & 2 have resisted the appeal. It is pleaded by them that as DDO in the PMRC the appellant had signed fraudulent cheques in the names of persons who were not even employees of PMRC. It is also stated that the appellant had allowed house requisition facility to ineligible employees. He was awarded penalty of compulsory retirement. The said penalty was challenged by him in the FST by filing Appeals No, 371(R)/CS/2008 and 457(R)CS/2008. Both the appeals were allowed and the respondents were directed to hold de novo proceedings against him. A Civil Appeal No, 452/2010 was filed by the Secretary, Ministry of Health against the appellant in the Supreme Court of Pakistan in which direction was issued to complete the de novo inquiry.
Meanwhile the appellant was reinstated into service.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. The Supreme Court of Pakistan had been pleased to direct the reinstatement of the appellant in service and for the completion of de novo proceedings against him. A further direction was issued to get a case registered against him with the FIA.
5. The Finance Division has clearly stated in its comments that the request of the appellant has to be allowed and payment out of his G.P. Fund cannot be refused. Even under Section 60 CPC the G.P.
Fund of the appellant is not liable to be attached in execution of decree. There is no decree passed against the appellant. Thus Section 60 may not be strictly applicable to the claim of the appellant but the principle contained in it can be borrowed for deciding the present appeal.
6. The registration of a criminal case does not debar the promotion of a civil servant. In the same manner disciplinary proceedings do not block his promotion. Considering the principles of promotion and attachment in execution of a decree and also taking into account the comments filed by the Finance Division we directed the PMRC to release the G.P. Fund of the appellant as requested by him. Such release shall be according to the prescribed limit.
7. There shall be no order as to cost. Parties shall be informed.