Find a Lawyer

Case No. 28711965 of 1982, decided on 15th December, 1982.

‑‑ R. 6‑Civil servant considered under suspension pending final determination of his case‑No suspension order on record‑Held Period be treated as leave of kind due to civil servant.

Dost Muhammad Khan for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.

Muhammad Muqeem, Patwari has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha and the Assistant Commis sioner/Collector, Mianwali as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that impugned orders of the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Mianwali and the Commissioner, Sargodha Division be set aside the penalty imposed upon him be remitted and he be allowed full back benefits from the date of his removal dated 25^th February, 1979.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant when posted as Patwari Halqa Chak No. 26/D. B. Tehsil Mianwali was proceeded against under the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975 and was charge sheeted on different charges. The appellant was compulsory retired by the Settlement Officer, Thai, Bhakkar, vide his order, dated 25th February, 1979. The appellant felt aggrieved from this order and filed an appeal to the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha which was rejected vide order, dated 10th June, 1979. The appellant then approached the Punjab Service Tribunal, who vide their order, dated 26th October, 1980, observed that the Settlement Office Collector, Thai Bhakkar was not competent authority to proceed against the appellant and accordingly remanded the case to the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha for further action. The Commissioner, Sargodha, remanded this case vide his order dated 27th March, 1981 to the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Mianwali for taking action against the appellant under the provisions of the (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Mianwali proceeded accordingly against the appellant and imposed the penalty of withholding one increment upon the appellant with cumulative effect. However, the period between 25th February, 1979 to 26th October, 1980 was treated leave without pay. The remaining period from 27th October, 1980 to 11th November, 1981 was considered as period under suspension and he was allowed only suspension allowance equal to half pay and other allowances admissible, for this period. The appellant made an appeal to the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargo dha and the period between 25th February, 1979 and 26th October, 1979, was controverted as leave due to the appellant. The appeal was accepted to this extent and the impugned order was amended accordingly. Hence this appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued his case mainly for the period from 27th October, 1980 to 11th November, 1981, submitting that as there was no suspension order of the appellant for this period hence this period should have not been considered as period under suspension and the fate of this period needs to be decided. He further prayed that this period should also have been treated in the same way as was decided in the case of the period from 25th February, 1979 to 26th October, 1980 by the learned Commissioner, Sargodha i.e. the leave on due basis. The learned District Attorney/representative of the respondents was asked to put up the record to show if the appellant was under suspension during the period 27th October, 1980 to 11th November, 1981.

5. I have consulted the record of the case produced by the represen tative of respondent No. 2, and have not been able to find. any order passed by the competent authority that the appellant remaned under suspension during the period from 27th October, 1980 to 11th November; 1981. Thus, it is clear that there has been some omission /misunderstandin while the impugned order, dated 11th November, 1981 was passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Sub‑Division, Mianwali, taking the appellant under suspension. Hence, I hold that the period from 27th October, 1980 to 11th November, 1981 be treated as leave of kind due to the appellant as decided by the learned Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha for the period from 25th February, 1979 to 26th October, 1980, as well. This appeal is accepted to this extent.

There will be no order as to costs.

M. I Appeal partly accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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