IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
 
Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ. 
 
 
Mr. Justice Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi 
 
 
Mr. Justice Saiyed Saeed Ashhad 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO.1097-L OF 2004 
(On appeal from the judgment dated 8.1.2004 passed by Federal  
Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No.89(L)(C.S)/2000) 
 
Superintending Engineer GEPCO Sialkot   
 
     …Petitioner   
 
Versus 
Muhammad Yousaf  
 
 
 
 
 
      …Respondent 
 
For the Petitioner:  
 
In person  
 
For the Respondents: 
 
Mian Mehmood Hussain, ASC 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
 
23.11.2006 
 
ORDER 
 
Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ. - This petition has been filed 
for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 8.1.2004 passed by 
Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No.89(L)(C.S.)/2000. 
2. 
Precisely stating the facts of the case are that respondent faced 
criminal proceedings for committing offence of culpable homicide 
amounting to murder. The trial Court saddled him with the penalty of 
death. Meanwhile, because of his arrest on 8th January, 1992 he was 
suspended. On the other hand in appeal learned Lahore High Court, 
Lahore set aside the conviction/sentence awarded to him by the trial 
Court and acquitted him from the charge of murder vide judgment dated 
12th July, 1998. Accordingly, he was taken back on duty and the period 
of his suspension was treated as leave i.e. from 6th January, 1992 to 8th 
October, 1994. It is to be noted that from 9th October, 1994 to 12th 
September, 1998 nothing was paid to him. It is stated that the period 
from 8th January, 1992 to 8th October, 1994 on his acquittal was treated 
as leave on due basis instead of suspension as per order of the Authority 
dated 13th August, 1999. The period commencing from 9th October, 1994 
to 12th September, 1998 was also treated as leave on due basis vide order 
CP No.1097-L of 2004.doc 
2
dated 16th July, 1999. Respondent being aggrieved from the order of the 
department approached the Service Tribunal for release of his salary for 
this period. Appeal was allowed by the impugned judgment. Relevant 
para therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow: - 
“We have before us a judgment of the Apex Court. The citation is 1998 
SCMR 1993. In this case the Civil Servant was also involved in a murder 
case. He was acquitted. The apex court was pleased to hold that in case of 
acquittal the Civil Servant should be considered to have committed no 
offence. He was declared entitled to grant of arrears of pay and 
allowances in respect of period he had remained under suspension on the 
basis of murder case against him. In the light of this authority we hold that 
the appellant is entitled to arrears of pay and allowances for the disputed 
period. In 2002 P.S.C.157 a similar view was expressed by the apex 
Court. The appellant was reinstated in service with back benefits for the 
period he had not been gainfully employed elsewhere. In the present case 
the appellant had not been gainfully employed elsewhere due to conviction 
in a murder case. He is, therefore, entitled to back benefits as held by the 
apex court. The most recent judgment of the apex court on the subject is 
reported as 2003 U.C.809 the appellant was acquitted in the criminal case 
and was held entitled to back benefits.”  
3. 
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent 
would only be entitled for the financial benefits for a period of six months 
during which he remained under suspension while for the remaining 
period he would be granted financial benefits but this period would be 
treated as leave on due basis.  
4. 
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent stated that 
as the respondent has been acquitted of the charge honourably, 
therefore, he is entitled for full benefits without treating the same period 
on the basis of leave due. He stated that exactly in such like situation 
this Court in the case Dr. Muhammad Islam Vs. Government of 
N.W.F.P. through Secretary Food, Agriculture, Livestock and 
Cooperative Department, Peshawar and 2 others (1998 SCMR 1993) 
has granted the relief to the employee who after acquittal from the 
murder charge claimed the benefit under FR 54(1). In this behalf it is to 
be noted that in identical circumstances in the case which has been 
relied upon by the Tribunal Rashid Mahmood Vs. Additional Inspector 
CP No.1097-L of 2004.doc 
3
General of Police and two others (2002 PSC 157) in which financial 
benefits were extended for the period during which a civil servant could 
not perform his duty on account of his involvement in the criminal case 
and as soon as he was acquitted of the charge he was held entitled for 
the full benefits considering him as if he has performed the duty. 
Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that question for 
consideration would be as to whether the respondent was honourably 
acquitted because according to him the learned High Court while 
accepting his Criminal Appeal on 12th July, 1998 extended him benefit of 
doubt. In this behalf it may be noted that in the case of Muhammad 
Iqbal Zaman, Vernacular Clerk, Marwat Canal Division, Bannu Vs. 
superintending Engineer, Southern Irrigation Circle, Bannu and 4 
others (1999 SCMR 2870) identical question came for consideration and 
this Court considered that acquittal of a civil servant, even if based on 
benefit of doubt was honourable. Applying same principle we are of the 
opinion that the respondent who statedly was acquitted by extending 
him benefit of doubt would be deemed to have been acquitted 
honourably. Therefore, under the circumstances we are of the opinion 
that the Service Tribunal rightly directed the petitioner to treat him on 
duty and give him all financial benefits during the period of his 
confinement in custody on account of his involvement in the murder 
case.  
5. 
Thus for the forgoing reasons we see no force in the petition which 
is dismissed and leave declined.  
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
23rd November, 2006 
Atif/* 
APPROVED FOR REPORTING