' S. HAFEEZ-UR-REHMAN (MEMBER).-Shabih-ur-Raza was Inspector of Police when, by an order dated 2nd July, 1979, the D.1.-G. Police, Crime Branch, retired him from service under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. On appeal, this order was found by the I. G., Police, vide order dated 23rd February, 1980 to be null and void as the D.I-G. Was not competent to pass such an order in respect of a Sub-Inspector. The IGP ordered the appellant's reinstatement in service and directed at the same time that the period spent by him on L.P.R. Will be treated as leave of the kind due. This meant, in actual effect, as stated in S P. Crimes' order dated 3rd March, 1980, that from 3rd July, 1979 to 2nd November, 1979 the appellant was considered to be on full pay while from 3rd November, 1979 to 24th February, 1980 he was to be on half pay. Soon after he was reinstated, the appellant was again retired under section 12 (ii) of the Civil Servants Act, this time by the S.P. Crime Branch, who was competent to do so. This order is dated 1st March, 1980 and has been the subject of a separate appeal before us. Through the present appeal the appellant impugns the order dated 3rd March, 1980 whereby he was considered to be on leave on full pay and half pay and the subsequent order by the L-G.P, rejecting his appeal. Also impugned is the I.-G. Police's original order dated 23rd February, 1980 in so far as it referred to the intervening period as leave of the kind due, and the Home Secretary's order dismissing his appeal on this account.
2. We have heard the parties. In respect of the earlier order of the D.I.-G. Crime, retiring the appellant, the I.-G.P. Observes in his order of 23rd February, 1980 that this order "is a nullity in the eyes of law being without jurisdiction and is, therefore, set aside with immediate effect". We do not have much to comment on this subject. Suffice it to say that such an order is void ab initio and the effect should be as if it had no been passed at all. And that is howwe find it. Since the L.P.R. Was applied for and granted as a consequence of this void order, that L.P.R. Too becomes as if it was neither sought nor granted. We have, therefore, no hesitation in accepting this appeal, because the appellant is asking for nothing unusual-he gets it as a consequence of the D.I.-G. Crime's order having been found null and void by the I.-G. Police. The result is that for the period from 3rd July 1979, to 24th February 1980 the appellant will be considered to have been on duty and entitled to full pay, allowances, etc. There will, however, be no order as to costs.