' FAKHAR HAYAT (MEMBER-V).--- Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was awarded punishment of dismissal from service by the respondent No,1 vide order dated 7-12-2007. The appellant preferred an appeal with respondent No,2 who vide order dated 28-12-2006 came to the conclusion that plea taken by the appellant carried some weight and in view of his explanation punishment of dismissal from service was set aside. He was reinstated into service with immediate effect and the period he remained out of service was treated as such. The appellant has grievance with respect to date of reinstatement and the nature of period intervening between dismissal and reinstatement of appellant.
2. In their parawise comments the respondents maintained that orders were passed in accordance with law.
3. Arguments advanced on behalf of the parties have been considered and available record gone through.
4. While setting aside punishment of dismissal from service the appellant was ordered to be reinstated into service with immediate effect A i,e, from date of order, which was not correct. It should have been w,e,f, date of dismissal and intervening period should have been allowed IA as leave of the kind due.
5. For what has been discussed above, the appeal of the appellant is accepted and impugned order dated 28-12-2006 passed by respondent No,2 is modified to the extent that the appellant shall be reinstated into service w,e,f, date of dismissal from service and intervening period between dismissal from service and reinstatement shall be treated as leave of the kind due.