' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment dated 25- 7-1996 of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar by which the appeal filed by the respondent has been accepted and he has been ordered to be reinstated in service with full back benefits.
2. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent who was serving as S.P., Kohistan in the year 1977 was suspended from service on the complaint of Election Commission of Pakistan having facilitated rigging of the election but soon thereafter, was reinstated pursuant lo the withdrawal of the complaint by the Election Commission. The said respondent was then posted as OSD in the S&GAD when all of a sudden, he was retired from service under section 13(i) of the N.- W.F.P. Civil Servants Act, 1973. By a separate notification, the N.-W.F.P. Government granted 365 days' leave to the respondent and his retirement was made effective from 1-12-1980. Through Notification dated 30-10-1989, the Government of North-West Frontier Province constituted a Service Review Board for the purposes of reviewing the cases of civil servants and employees of autonomous bodies and corporations who were reduced in rank, prematurely retired, removed or dismissed from service under Martial Law Order 17 or reduced in rank or removed from service or retired under the provisions of section 12-A or clause (i) or clause (ii) of section 13 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 as the case may be during 5th July, 1977 to 30th December, 1985. According to the terms of the said notification, the Service Review. Board constituted pursuant thereto consisted of three members one of whom was to chair the same as Chairman. It was required to take up review of cases after inviting applications from the affected persons and make its recommendations after examining the available record and affording to the applicants an opportunity of being heard. The recommendation of the Board in each individual case was required to be processed and submitted to the competent Authority through the Services and General Administration Department for final orders. It was also provided that while making the recommendations, the Board shall also consider the question whether for the purposes of providing relief recommended by it, any amendment of the law applicable to the applicant would be required and if so, specify the terms of the amendment. The aggrieved persons were required to submit applications within thirty days of the publication of a notice inviting such petitions by the Board which should be in such form as the Board may specify and were required to be accompanied by all the material information in regard to the orders sought to be reviewed which shall also specify the grounds on which review was sought.
3. The respondent availed this remedy and made an application to the Board which examined the case of the said respondent and found through order dated 9-7-1990 that during his service, the respondent had earned good ACRs and the order of his compulsory 'retirement was not justified. It recommended the withdrawal of the said order and his reinstatement in service. The respondent for implementation of the said recommendation approached the Government i.e,, the Chief Minister, N.-W.F.P., who while rejecting his case, passed the following order on 7-10-1991:-- ' "Please refer to the subject noted above. The case has been examined by the Hon'ble Chief Minister N.-W.F.P. And filed."
' He then approached the Governor N.-W.F.P. Who also did not accede to his request and passed the following order dated 12-1-1992: ' "Reference your petition dated 3-11-1991 addressed to the Governor on the subject noted above.
The case was examined in S&GAD and regretted."
4. Aggrieved by the said orders, the respondent filed Constitutional petition before the Peshawar High Court which was kept pending as a question had already been raised in similar petitions about the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the Constitutional petitions in such matters, till the final decision of the said question. It was decided by this Court in case of "Government of N.- W.F.P. v. Sheikh Saadullah Jan" that such issues fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, therefore, the High Court had no jurisdiction in such service matters. In view of the law declared by this Court, the respondent's writ petition was declared as misconceived and accordingly dismissed on 21-9-1995 by the High Court with the direction to seek remedy from the proper forum. The respondent approached the Service Tribunal by filing appeal which has been accepted through the impugned judgment dated 25-7-1996 and he has been ordered to be reinstated in service with full back benefits against which this appeal by leave has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that order of compulsory retirement of the respondent passed by the departmental authority as far back as 1979 had attained finality, therefore, the question as to correctness, legality or otherwise of the said order could not be raised or examined in the present proceedings. He also argued that the competent Authority was not bound by the recommendations made by the Review. Board, therefore, if the said recommendations had not been accepted with which the competent Authority could disagree, the respondent could not agitate against the same.
6. None of the arguments in the facts and circumstances of the case, has impressed us. A Review Board was constituted, in the year 1989 with a sacred purpose of doing justice to a person against whom an order in the service matter had been passed. The aggrieved person was given a right to file review petition within thirty days of being called upon by the Board and the Board consisted of very high and responsible officers in the Government of whom one was Chairman of the Service Tribunal, therefore, in this view of the matter, the argument that the original order of compulsory retirement of the respondent passed on 25-11-1979 having attained finality and having become past and closed transaction, could not have been reopened, has no substance. The Government itself reopened the matter by providing to. The aggrieved person remedy of making application within thirty days which can safely be construed to be an amendment in the relevant rules of departmental appeal and representation for limited purposes of providing another remedy of making representation afresh on which the entire matter stood reopened and the so-called finality, if any, attached to the original order had been done away with. The recommendations of the Board and any order passed by the competent Authority on the basis of the same, therefore, gave fresh cause of action to the aggrieved person who could approach the Service Tribunal if he felt aggrieved of the order passed by the competent Authority in relation to the recommendations by the Board.
7. The argument of learned counsel for the appellants that the competent Authority was not bound by the recommendations of the Board as it was a matter relating to internal administration of the department, therefore, the respondent could not claim as a matter of right reinstatement in pursuance of the recommendations of the Board, has equally no merits. As has been observed above, the Board was constituted with the sacred purpose of doing justice and remove any injustice done to a person in the matter of his service. It consisted of Chairman of the Service Tribunal as Chairman and two other members of high ranking officers of the Government. It was required to examine the case of each aggrieved individual thoroughly, after examining the relevant record and recommendations made by the Board if had the implication of making amendment in the relevant laws for implementation of the same, the amendments were also required to be proposed by the Board.
8. It is manifest from bare reading of the notification of constitution of the board to review the cases of aggrieved persons in service matters that the exercise was meant to be purposeful and not merely a mechanical process and the purpose was to remove any injustice done to an individual, therefore, the recommendations if any, made by the Board were to be examined in the department thoroughly and if competent Authority disagreed with them the decision was to be expressed in clear terms giving reasons dealing with the recommendations of the Board and the grounds on which the said recommendations were made.
9. According to the notification under which the Board was constituted, Services Administration Department was to deal with the recommendations of the Board at departmental level and the case placed before the competent Authority for its decision, therefore, if it was of the view that the recommendations of the Board were not proper or the same should not be implemented, it should have indicated in the summary to be placed before the competent authority containing the reasons for such disagreement to which the competent authority was required to apply its judicious mind instead of passing order mechanically in routine. The reasons on which the recommendations of the Board were to be rejected, were also required to be such which were based on relevant consideration having logical nexus with the object of law and should also be such which could be sustained before a Court of law. In other words, the said reasons were justiciable. In the present case, nothing has been brought on the record as to what weighed with the competent authority to take a decision as conveyed to the respondent for filing the case. The same is the case with the order of the Governor. Both these orders, therefore, on the face of them, were passed arbitrarily and whimsically. The recommendations of the Board were based on the considerations relevant under the service laws i.e,, the ACRs of the entire period of service of the respondent were found good and the complaint made by the Election Commission had also been withdrawn. There was no proof of any act of misconduct of the respondent nor any reason was given while passing order of his compulsory retirement dated 25-11-1979 which was also a fanciful and whimsical order.
10. The Service Tribunal did not commit any illegality by accepting the appeal of the respondent and ordering his reinstatement in service with full back benefits.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in granting full back benefits to the respondent as he had not worked during the entire period from the date of his compulsory retirement and reinstatement against any post. On this the respondent who is present in the Court states that though he was entitled to such benefits but voluntarily abandons the same if period of absence from service is directed to be treated as extraordinary leave under the rules and amount of pension and other dues may be calculated accordingly as he has already retired from service.
12. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merits in this appeal as regards reinstatement of the respondent in service. Since the respondent has voluntarily abandoned his claim of full back benefits, therefore, the direction of the Service Tribunal to grant him full back benefits is hereby set aside and the entire period of absence shall be treated as extraordinary leave without pay under the rules.
13. With the above modification, the appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.