Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 349/690 of 1980, decided on 14th April, 1981.

‑‑ R. 7.5‑Re‑instatement‑Pay for intervening period‑‑Dismissal order passed by incompetent authority‑Referred to competent authority by appellate authority for decision afresh and official exonerated by competent authority‑‑Official tendering resignation during proceedings but no action taken thereon‑Such abortive application for retirement/ resignation, held, immaterial for purposes of treating period be remained out of service and treating such period as leave due treating intervening period after re‑instatement as duty, in circum stances accepted‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

M. A. Riaz for Appellant.

H. R. Cheema, District Attorney for Respondent.

‑‑This is an appeal for regularisation of the period from 1‑9‑1975 to 8‑1‑1979, during which the appellant, Syed Zafar Abbas, Kanungo, remained out of service as' a result of proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules and for payment of full salary and allowances for this period which ended in the appellant's re‑instatement in service. The order of respondent No. 1, granting him leave admissible for this period is impugned. The appeal made against this order to respondent No. 4 eras rejected on 28‑9‑1980.

2. The appellant was working as Kanungo candidate in Lahore District when he was served with a show‑cause notice by respondent No. 2 under rule 6(3) of‑the‑Efficiency and Discipline Rules and after a personal hearing, was ordered to be compulsorily retired from service for inefficiency and misconduct vide order dated 9‑2‑1977. In the meantime respondent No. 1 had been declared the competent authority for Kanungo candidates with effect from 2.11‑1976 and the D. C.'s order became void. The appellant went in appeal to respondent No. 3 who referred it to respondent No. 1 for disposal, respon dent No. 1 decided that the appellant should be considered to be in continuous service with effect from 25‑7‑1975 but that a departmental enquiry be held into his conduct. Consequently a show‑cause notice was issued on 7‑1‑1979 and the appellant asked to explain why action should not be taken against him for inefficiency and unauhorised absence from duty (misconduct). In this enquiry he was exonerated, but the period he remained away from work was counted as leave of the kind due.

3. The parties were heard. It was the contention of the appellant that under para. 7.5 of the Civil Service Rules, Volume I, Part I, he was entitled to be treated on duty for the entire period as a result of exoneration from the charges contained in the show‑cause notice. The grant of admissible leave was neither consistent with the rules nor just on merits. The Respon dent Department had nothing much to say in defence of the decision to treat the appellant on leave for the relevant period except that para. 7'5 of the C. S. R. did not cover the case of the appellant.

4. The only reference that we found regarding respondent No. 4's order of 8‑11‑1979 to grant leave to the appellant was in para. 9 of that order which stated that "out of the total period (1‑9‑1975 to 8‑1‑1979) after deducting the period of his maximum earned leave the remaining period shall be treated as leave without pay as he bad tendered his resignation". It seems that on 10‑3‑1976 the appellant asked for retirement/resigned from service, but apparently no action was taken on this application, because ultimately, after being exonerated on 8‑11‑1979 by the Director of Land Records that appellant continued to serve just as be had earlier rejoined duty on 9‑1‑1979 and had been in service since then. We do not, therefore, agree that the appellant's abortive application for retirement/resignation matters in the context of the period he remained off‑duty. It is common ground that the appellant was exonerated of all the charges by respondent No. 4, and the respondent Department has not brought forth anything else to warrant any reduction in the appellant's dues for the period in question.

In view of the above and in the absence of any cogent justification for considering the appellant to be on leave of the kind due, we hold that the appellant shall be considered to be on duty during the period from. 1‑9‑1975 to 8‑1‑1979 and be paid his dues accordingly. The order of the Director, Land Records dated 8‑11‑1979, in so far as it determines the kind of leave due to the appellant, is, therefore, set aside, as also the order made by the Member, Board of Revenue, on 28‑9‑1980.

As a consequence the appeal is accepted, without, however, any order as to costs. '

Find a Lawyer Near You

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