' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Bashir Ahmad has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Superintending Engineer, Lower Chenab Canal East Circle, Faisalabad and the Executive Engineer, Burewala Division, Faisalabad, as respondents.
2. By virtue this appeal the appellant has prayed that the order, dated 21-8-1979 as well as order dated 4-1-1982, be set aside and the appellant be reinstated in service.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was found guilty under section 218, P.P.C. By the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore and was convicted and sentenced till the rising of court and a fine of Rs,3,000, in default of payment of fine he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 9 months. On the receipt of this information that the appellant had been convicted, the Executive Engineer Burewala Division, Faisalabad ordered his removal from service. Aggrieved against this order he filed an appeal before the Superintending Engineer, Lower Chenab Canal East Circle, Faisalabad, which was rejected as being time barred as well as on the ground that he was a convict. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order of the removal of the appellant was unwarranted as his appeal was still pending before the Lahore High Court. It has been argued that the appeal has been admitted to regular hearing, therefore, the presumption would be that the appellant had prima facie a good case in his favour, therefore, he should be reinstated in service. It has been further argued that vide order of March, 1983, learned Chief Justice Lahore High Court has reduced the sentence of fine from Rs,3,000 to Rs,500 or in default to undego one month rigorous imprisonment, although the conviction has been maintained. According to the learned counsel this judgment should be construed in favour of the appellant and may be made basis for his reinstatement.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the arguments so advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant are misconcieved. The appellant being convicted for moral turpitude, had to be removed from service under the rules so laid down in this behalf. With regard to the judgment of the Lahore High Court, it has been submitted that mere admission to regular hearing does not entitle the appellant to any benefit. Regarding judgment of Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, it has been submitted that the sentence of the appellant has been reduced but conviction maintained, therefore, the appellant will remain a convict person for his all life.
7. We have given our anxious thought so advanced by the parties and find that the case of the appellant is without any merits as the order of his removal from service was fully justified, the reason being that the appellant has been convicted for moral turpitude by the Anti-Corruption and his conviction has been fully maintained although the sentence has been reduced by the Lahore High Court. In view of the above, the appellant would be considered a convicted person and would be liable to be removed from service under the rules.
8. The result is that we dismiss the appeal as being without any force. There will be no order as to costs.