Find a Lawyer

Case No. 67/1565 of 1982, decided on 24th May, 1982.

‑‑ S. 4‑Appellant placed under suspension‑Making written request for reinstatement with undertaking not to claim pay for suspension period‑Claiming pay and other benefits in appeal before Tribunal, after being reinstated en basis of such request‑Held: Could not be allowed to reprobate in face of his written commitment hence interference refused by Tribunal.

Muhammad Ahmad Hasan Khan for Appellant.

Haroonur Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.

Qari Noor Muhammad Teacher of Government High School No. I Ghakhar, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Province of the Punjab through Secretary Education, Director Public Instruction Punjab, Lahore and Director of Education Lahore Division; as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the respon dents be directed to pay the salary and other benefits for the period the appellant remained suspended from 1st December, 1975 to 31st August, 1980 and to give proper grade to which the appellant is entitled under the rules. The appellant has further prayed that the orders of suspension passed by the Headmaster of the School be declared to be an order without jurisdiction and he may be awarded the cost of the appeal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while sewing as a Teacher, was suspended from service with effect from 22nd November. 1975. A thorough enquiry was made into the allegations so levelled against him and the appellant was exonerated of all the charges through letter, dated 11th August. 1980, a copy of which has been placed on the record as Annex. B'. The appellant was reinstated, vide an order, dated 11th August, 1980 but the gap period for which he remained out of service, was treated as leave without pay. Hence this appeal.

4. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant before us is, that when the appellant has been reinstated there was no justification for the competent authority to treat his period of suspension as leave without pay.

5. The fact of the matter is that the appellant had made a written request to the competent authority that if he was reinstated in service be would not claim any pay for the period he remained under suspension. It was only at his request that the impugned order was passed. In fact the appellant was faced with situation where either he had to face the consequence of the enquiry which could have ended in his dismissal from service, on to chose a course for himself in order to get back into service and under these circumstances the appellant cannot be allowed to reprobate in face of his written commitment.

6. With regard to the legality of the order of suspension it would be sufficient to say that the same had to be challenged when it was so made and no exception can be taken to the same at this belated stage when the matter is past and closed and the appellant by foregoing his pay for the period of suspension induced the authorities to take him back on the job.

7. The result is we do not find any merits in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. However, parties shall bear their own costs.

A. B.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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