Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑390 of 1983, decided on 29th May, 1984.

‑‑‑ Suspension‑‑Railway servant‑‑Involved in corruption case‑‑Suspended but re‑instated after some time‑‑Placed again under suspension on grounds that he was tampering with prosecution evidence‑‑Re‑sus pension, in circumstances, held, not supported by Rules hence wrong ful‑‑Labour Court's order directing re‑instatement upheld by Appellate Tribunal‑‑Impugned suspension being wrongful respondent (employee), held, entitled to wages for suspension period‑‑Industrial Relation:, Ordinance (XXIII of 196'3), Ss. 25‑‑A & 38(3).

Muhammad Ramzan for Appellants.

Sh. Abdul Ghafoor for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 27th May, 1984.

The decision, dated 18th May, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has been challenged in this appeal, whereby suspension order was set aside with back benefits.

2. The respondent was suspended on account of being involved in a corruption case. He was after some time re‑instated but was again suspended on the report that he was tampering with prosecution witness. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant with reference to Efficiency and Discipline Rules that a railway employee against whom there is a case of corruption can be suspended and his release on bail is not sufficient to re‑instate him, unless the authority decides in the circumstances of the case to set aside the suspension order. According to rules particularly in corruption case, an employee can be kept under suspension till he is acquitted but the present case is different. The competent authority had once after considering the case of the respondent, re‑instated him. Thereafter, he was again suspended. The reason for which it was done was not warranted by rules. If a person involved in a criminal case is alleged to be tampering with the prosecution evidence, his bail may be cancelled if the offence is non‑bailable but there is no rule that he should be brought under suspension. The respondent was, therefore, wrongly brought under suspension again and was rightly directed to be re‑instated. As the order of suspension was wrongful, the respondent was entitled to the wages of the period of suspension minus what he had received by way of suspension allowance if any.

3. As a result, the appeal, being without any force, is dismissed.

A. E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.