ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has set aside a Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal judgment and directed authorities to reconsider the case of a reinstated school teacher for grant of back pay under Fundamental Rule (FR) 54.
The court ruled that an employee who is honorably acquitted of criminal charges is entitled to full wages and benefits during the period of absence, subject to a lawful decision by the competent authority.
The ruling was authored by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, with Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi also on the bench, in a civil appeal arising from a 2019 decision of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, Swat Camp Court.
The appellant, Mian Abdul Saeed, a Secondary School Teacher (BPS-17) posted at Government High School Gokand, District Buner, was suspended on 31 December 2012 after being implicated in an FIR under Sections 302, 324, 147, 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
He was subsequently convicted by an Additional District Magistrate of Buner on 19 December 2013, leading to his removal from service on 6 July 2015. However, on appeal, the Peshawar High Court (PHC) acquitted him on 11 December 2017.
After his acquittal, he sought reinstatement along with back pay. The departmental authority reinstated him through an order dated April 19, 2018, but denied back pay and treated the intervening period as leave without pay.
His appeal before the Service Tribunal was only partially accepted, upholding the denial of back pay and treating the period of absence as leave of the nature required, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court.
At the leave stage, the apex court examined whether an officer who has been honourably acquitted of criminal charges is entitled to full back pay under FR 54.
During the proceedings, appellant’s counsel submitted that when an officer is acquitted, he is entitled to full pay and benefits as if he had never been removed from service.
It was argued that the appellant’s removal was based solely on his conviction and that no departmental inquiry had been conducted. Therefore, the denial of refunds was illegal and contrary to the fundamental rules.
The KP Advocate General submitted that since the appellant did not actually render service during the intervening period, he was not entitled to back pay and the period was rightly treated as leave without pay.
He further submitted that under Section 17 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act, 1973, the competent authority had discretion in granting arrears. After examining the record, the Supreme Court observed that the appellant was initially suspended after his arrest and later removed from service after conviction.
