' ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---Appellant Mr. Habibur Rehman Shaikh has preferred this appeal for grant of back benefits for the period he remained under suspension and out of service.
2. The facts of this appeal are that the appellant was proceeded under the E&D Rules on the charges of corruption and finally he was dismissed from service. He filed Appeal No,3(K)/87 before this Tribunal against dismissal order and during the pendency of his appeal, his punishment of dismissal from service was converted into reduction by two stages in the time scale with cumulated effect by the departmental authority, on the ground that his co-accused Mr. Ghulam Mustafa, Line Superintendent who was also dismissed from service on the same charges but in departmental appeal, the appellate authority converted his punishment to Censure. When his Appeal 3(K) of 1987 came up for hearing before this Tribunal it was urged that since Mr. Ghulam Mustafa, L.S. Who was awarded the punishment of censure and allowed all benefits he may also be treated at par.
3. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 14-9-1989 accepted the appeal to the extent of modification of penalty into censure. The respondents WAPDA went in appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the.Tribunal and filed Civil Petition No, 843-K-89 but the same was dismissed vide order dated 21-1-1990. Thereafter, respondent WAPDA passed an order on 21-12-1990 whereby punishment of censure was imposed on the appellant. The appellant made a representation (date not given) to the General Manager (M and S), Lahore seeking clarification of the order dated 21-12- 1990 and requested for treating the period from 30-8-1986 onward on duty. He repeated another representation dated 26-12-1992. According to the appellant, the General Manager, WAPDA rejected his claim vide letter dated 17-1-1993 addressed to the Chief Engineer (GSO) South, Hyderabad which was communicated to the appellant vide endorsement 12-4-1994. Thereafter, he has filed this appeal before the Tribunal.
4. We have heard Mr. Abdul Sattar Mughal, the learned counsel for the appellant. It is argued that extreme punishment of dismissal from service was converted into reduction by two stages by the departmental authority and the Tribunal had been pleased to allow his appeal filed before it by converting the punishment of reduction into censure. It is contended that since the charge was not proved against the appellant and only punishment of censure was in field, the appellant was entitled to the back benefits.
5. The respondents have filed objections and the learned counsel appearing on their behalf submitted that the appellate authority after considering the case converted the extreme punishment of dismissal from service to that of reduction of two stages in time scale but withheld the pay for the intervening period. The Tribunal allowed the appeal without back benefit and matter went up to the Supreme Court. Since judgment of Tribunal is silent for payment of arrears for the intervening period, the order passed by the appellate authority is just and proper.
6. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the record. The appellant was dismissed from service by order dated 30-81986. He challenged the order of his dismissal by filing Appeal No, 3(K) of 1987 before this Tribunal. His departmental appeal which was pending before appellate authority was accepted and the penalty of dismissal was converted into that of reduction by two stages lower in time scale with cumulative effect vide order dated 10-4-1989.
When the appeal came up for regular hearing before the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on similar charge and facts of another Officer was also proceeded against, and his punishment vas reduced to censure by the appellate authority whereas the appellant had been imposed the punishment of reduction by two stages in a time scale as .a result of modification of punishment by the departmental authorities. He argued that it was a case of discrimination and the appellant be also awarded punishment of censure. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 14-9-1989 allowed appeal with the modification of punishment to censure and made the following observations: "The allegation against the appellant and the accomplices was that they had taken illegal gratification of Rs,32,400 from one Nawabzada Mustafa Hussain for replacement of a 50 KV Transformer by a 100 KV transformer. The proceedings were taken against them by serving on them show-cause notices. The appellant's reply to the show+cause notice was that there had been replacement of the transformer but on the basis of feasibility report and not for any monetary consideration. His reply was not accepted and he was imposed the penalty. The punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the appellant on the basis of the charge of acceptance of illegal gratification but that order stands modified by the order of the appellate authority, as aforesaid, obviously on the charge of unauthorised replacement of low power transformer by a high powered transformer. The charge to that extent of replacement of the transformer was not denied by the appellant. Thus, the order of the appellate authority is in keeping with the charge that stood proved against the appellant by virtue of his reply to the show-cause notice."
' It is thus clear that the appellant was not absolved of the charge on merits and was given the relief on the principle of equity as his colleague was allowed but the Tribunal did not allow him the back benefits for the intervening period and therefore, department denied him the back benefits for the period he remained out of service. Even this point was not taken at the Supreme Court level but in all fairness when dismissal was converted to reduction by two stages in a time scale, the appellant cannot be deprived of his benefits as if he was in service according to department as per order of modification of punishment and even this Tribunal converted the punishment to censure. When two punishments of dismissal and reduction by two stages in a time scale are not in the field and he, though found guilty, is awarded Censure and in Identical case of Mr. Ghulam Mustafa has been given back benefits and Mr. Muhammad Ahmed Wasim, Advocate for WAPDA has also suggested that case be remanded, we, for the reasons stated above, remand the case to competent authority to pass appropriate order with reasons after hearing appellant. With these observations the appeal stands disposed of.