' ARSHAD BIN AHMAD (MEMBER-III).--- The appellant, Qaiser Ziaullah, P.T.C. Teacher, Government Primary School, Dera Gul Muhammad, Markaz Khuthiala Sheikhan, Mandi Bahauddin has assailed the orders, dated 31-10-2006 passed by the Executive District Officer, Education/respondent No,3, Mandi Bahauddin who has upheld the order, dated 16-10-2006 passed by the Deputy District Education Officer, Mandi Bahauddin/respondent No,1, whereby although his annual increment was allowed, no decision was taken on the intervening period during which he remained out of service i,e, 22-9-1993 to 12-1-2005.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that, the appellant was removed from service on 22-9-1993 by the respondent No,1 on certain misunderstanding regarding his appointment but subsequently on the intervening of the Punjab Service Tribunal, he was reinstated in service w,e,f, 12-1-2005. It was contended further that the Inquiry Committee found him innocent but recommended the intervening period to be treated as extraordinary leave without pay.
3. Learned District Attorney did not controvert the finding of the Inquiry Committee and stated that, although, the appellant was reinstated in service, his departmental appeal was barred by time and therefore, rejected.
4. Heard the parties and perused the record. The appellant was found to have been reinstated on the recommendations of the Inquiry Committee which had held him innocent and also held his termination as a flagrant violation of rules held by the Inquiry Officer, dated 13-12-2004.
Subsequently, an Inquiry Committee was constituted which inter alia held the removal of the appellant illegal and against the principles of law and justice as well as discriminatory. The appellant appears to have been a victim of the departmental action taken initially without any legal backing and subsequently, on being reinstated was denied the salary for the period, he was out of service. Prima facie, it appears to be unfair to deny him his right, first by preventing him for performing the duties by a wrongful order and subsequently, on being declared innocent, reinstating him in service, but denying him the salaries to which he would have been normally entitled had he been in service. His exoneration from the charges levelled against him should have been followed by treating the intervening period as on duty as provided under the relevant rules.
5. In view of the forgoing circumstances, the impugned order is modified to the extent that, the appellant would be entitled to the salaries for the intervening period, he was out of service, by treating the said period as in service. No orders as to cost. Consigned to record.