' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21-5-1996 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal); in Appeal No,370-L of 1995.
2. The petitioner is a Railway's employee. He was removed from service with effect from 13-7-1995 on the charges of misconduct On appeal, the charges levelled against him were found not proved and consequently he was reinstated in service without payment of arrears for the period from the date he was removed to the date of his joining the department vide impugned judgment, dated 21st May, 1996. Admittedly, the petitioner was exonerated of the charges against him and not for technical reasons or by granting him benefit of insufficiency of evidence. It would be advantageous to reproduce paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment, which reads thus:-- "We have looked into all the aspects of the case and clumsy reaction of the department by removing him from service with effect from 13-7-1995 when he had asked for reply to be given by 14-7-1995. The action taken i,e, the removal of the appellant from service is not justified when he is not given even time to explain his case by the ruthless action by the department."
3. After hearing the petitioner in person and Mr. Aslam Sindhu, Advocate Supreme Court, learned Legal Advisor to the Railways, we find that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not right in denying back benefits to the petitioners, particularly when it is an admitted fact that no appeal has been filed by the respondent-Railways against the impugned order dated 21- 5-1996, whereby the petitioner has been reinstated in service, moreso when the learned Legal Advisor has frankly conceded that during the period of his removal and reinstatement the petitioner was not gainfully employed anywhere.
4. We, therefore, convert this petition into appeal and allowing the same set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 21-5-1996 to the extent of denying the appellant back benefits.
5. The result is that the appellant shall be paid back benefits from the date of his removal to the date of his reinstatement. No costs.