' S. HAFIZUR RAHMAN (MEMBER).-In this case the appellant, Mian Ahmad, is aggrieved against the Order dated 6th July, 1980 issued by the Board of Revenue Whereby, on his re-instatement in service as Assistant Vide the decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal [announced in his appeal on 13th December, 1979, he was not allowed full pay and allowances for the period he remained suspended and out of service. The appellant made a representation in this respect which was rejected by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department on 27th October, 1980,
2. There is no need to give the history of the case which has already been stated in detail in the judgment of this Tribunal in the appellant's Appeal No, 258/390 of 1978 announced on 13th December, 1979. The parties were heard. The appellant contended that the High Court acquitted him honourably, and that this Tribunal also took his acquittal as honourable and thereby ordered the appellant to be re-instated in service. He further referred to directions issued by the Government in the S&GA Department on 30th September, 1958 and 10th January, 1959 that acquittal should be treated as honourable acquittal unless there is a suggestion by the Court that the conduct of the accused has been suspicious or unless the acquittal is on the basis of benefit of doubt. He contended, therefore, that there was no justification to withhold his full pay and allowances on the misconceived excuse that he had been acquitted on technical grounds and not honourably. Stating the case of the Respondent Department, the learned District Attorney pressed the argument that the appellant had been acquitted by the High Court on a legal plane, not on facts, and that this Tribunal had also observed that the High Court judgment gave the appellant benefit of doubt.
1 We have gone through the judgment of the High Court as well as the decision of the Tribunal. In that decision the following words have been used to describe the verdict of the learned Judge of the High Court in respect of the two charges against the appellant :- "So far as the first charge of corruption is concerned, the charge could not be proved against the appellant. Even in the departmental enquiry Umer Din stated that Bashir Ahmad did not approach him and he paid Abdul Karim only who in turn paid the appellant. So far as the second charge is concerned; benefit of doubt has been given to the accused in the absence of proof."
4. The interpretation given in the Tribunal's decision is very clear. If the appellant receives benefit of doubt in one charge he cannot be said to have been acquitted honourably in the whole case. In view of' this observation we do not feel called upon to interfere in this matter.
5. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.