' JEHAN ZAIB BURKI (MEMBER-IV).--- The appellant was dismissed from service vide order, dated 25- 1-2005. After exhausting departmental remedy, he filed Appeal No,1832 of 2005 before the Punjab Service Tribunal. Vide its Judgment, dated 19-12-2005, the case was remanded to the respondents for taking a fresh decision. The respondents vide their order, dated 20-6-2006 modified the punishment of dismissal from service into a "Censure". Moreover, the intervening period from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement was treated as extraordinary leave (without pay).
The instant appeal was filed praying for treatment of the intervening period as on duty, with all consequential back-benefits.
2. It has been contended by the appellant that after conversion of his dismissal order into "Censure", there was no justification to treat the intervening period as extraordinary leave without pay. If allowed to remain, the period of extraordinary leave without pay would tantamount to a punishment as it would be excluded from the appellant's service which was not justified under the circumstances. The appellant has drawn attention to a judgment, dated 1-11-2001 in Appeal No,3095 of 1999 of the Punjab Service. Tribunal whereby, under identical circumstances, the intervening period had been treated as leave of the kind due.
3. The respondents have resisted the appeal and have stated that the department had already taken a lenient view by reinstating the appellant in service. Since the appellant had not performed any duty during the intervening period, the same had been treated as extraordinary leave (without pay).
4. The parties have been heard and the relevant record has been perused.
5. It has been correctly contended by the appellant that by converting the major punishment of dismissal from service into minor punishment of "Censure", the respondents had already awarded him the penalty considered appropriate in his case. In case, the intervening period from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement was allowed to be treated as extraordinary leave without pay, it would amount to imposition of another punishment, as it would result in exclusion of the said period from his service and would cause him a recurring loss during the remaining period of his service. It has been correctly argued with reference to Punjab Service Tribunal judgment, dated 1- 11-2001 in Appeal No,3095 of 1999 that treating the intervening period in the above manner shall amount to forfeiture of service which will be another kind of punishment to the appellant. As such, the appeal is accepted and it is directed that the intervening period from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement of the appellant shall be treated as leave of the kind due, if available in the leave account of the appellant.
6. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties be informed.