1. SAAD SAOOD JAN (CHAIRMAN).-By this appeal the appellant an ex-Secretary, Unto;: Council No. 72, Ahmadabad, Tehsil Chiniot, District Jhang contests his dismissal from service by the Controlling Authority, District Council, Jhang (Deputy Commissioner,) on 8-10-1973, in consequence of his conviction by Special Judge, Jhang under section 409, P. P. C. for which he had been sentenc--ed to two years' R. 1 and a fine of Rs. 2,000 or in default a further R. I. for one year. The Controlling Authority while passing the order relied upon Rule 39 of the Local Council Service (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1963, which provided that if a Local Council servant has been awarded a sentence of imprisonment by a Court on a criminal charge involving moral turpitude, he shall be deemed to have been dismissed front the Local Council Service from the date of such conviction and the Authority shall pass orders accordingly.
2. The appellant filed the departmental appeal before the Commissioner, Sargodha on the ground that he has challenged his conviction before the Lahore High Court, in which the High Court on 22- 2-1973 suspended the sentence which order according to appellant had the effect of rendering the conviction inoperative.;. The learned Commissioner on 4th of December 1973, dismissed the appeal holding that the; fact of the conviction of the appellant was deemed to have resulted in the dismissal of the appellant and thus there was no question of his re-instatement and the Controlling, Authority was, therefore, justified in passing the order in question.
3. The appellant in this appeal before us has reiterated his contentions and presses for acceptance of this appeal and his reinstatement as Secretary, Union Council. We have, however, pointed out to the appellant that he was not a "civil servant" and thus this appeal was not maintainable before us.
4. The appellant placed reliance upon a circular issued by the Director General, Punjab Peoples Works Programme and Additional Secretary to the Government of the Punjab bearing Memorandum No. PWP/Admn/2(103)/ 73, dated 5th December 1973. The relevant extract from the said letter is reproduced below for the facility of reference. "The Secretaries of the Union Councils of the defunct B. D. set up shall be deemed to have been appointed on the existing terms and conditions against the newly created temporary posts of Rural Development Worker (Dehi Karkun) under the Peoples'
5. Works Programme, in the districts where they are posted at present, w. e. f. 1-11-1973. Formal orders making the appoint--ments in individual cases may be issued by D. C./Project Directors.
6. We however, invited the attention of the appellant to the definition of the civil, servant as contained in the Punjab Civil Service (Appellate) Tribunals Act, 1974, which reads as follows: "Civil servant means a person who is or has been a member of a civil service of the Province, or has held a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Province but does not include . . . ."
7. It was in the light of the above definition that we asked the appellant to satisfy us as to whether he is or he has been a member of the civil service of the Province on 20th of June, 1974. The letter relied upon by the appellant only indicated that persons holding the post of Secretary o Union Council shall be deemed to have been appointed to a civil post under the Punjab Government w. e. f. 1-11- 1973 rather implying that the earlier employment was otherwise. Moreover, the letter also required the issuance of the formal letters of appointment by the respective D. Cs., Project Directors, Rural Works Programmes. But the appellant has since long before 1-11-1973 ceased to hold the post of Secretary of Union Council i. a on 22-2-1973, and admittedly no letter of appointment had been issued in his case. Thus, neither he could be deemed to have been so appointed nor formally appointed in terms of letter above.
8. So far as the plea of the appellant based upon the order of High Court suspending the sentence is concerned, the distinction between the conviction has to be kept in mind. The order of suspending the sentence did not ipso facto cancel the conviction, which remained intact subject to the final verdict of the High Court. We have not been shown by the appellant any order passed by the High Court setting aside his conviction. D Thus the appellant could not be deemed to have been appointed to an civil post in the Province on 1-11-1973 as on that date he did not hold any post of Secretary, Union Council. Under these circumstances, we cannot hold that the appellant was a civil servant within the meaning of the definition contained in section 2(b) of the Punjab Civil Service (Appellate) Tribunals Act, 1974.
9. Since the appellant has failed to show that he was a civil servant, this appeal is not maintainable before us and is accordingly dismissed in limine.