Brief facts of the case as gathered from the memorandum of appeal are! That, while working as a Professor of Ophthalmology at the Rawalpindi Medial College, Rawalpindi, the appellant applied for medical leave for one month w,e,f, 13.10.2010 and subsequently for extension in his leave. These applications supported with medical certificates were acknowledged by the Punjab Health Department vide its Letter No, SO(AMI) 1-12/99-P, dated 1.12.2010 and the appellant, was required to appear before the Medical Board to revalidate his Medical certificates. The appellant appeared before the Medical Board and he was invalidated in Category-C till 09.04.2013. Thereafter, on expiry of the invalidation period, the appellant was proceeded against under PEEDA Act, 2006 and in this regard a show-cause notice dated 31.12.2013 was served upon him on the charge of willful absence from duty w,e,f, 09.04.2013. Resultantly, the appellant was awarded major penalty of "Compulsory Retirement from Service w,e,f, 09.04.2013, vide order dated 2.07.2015 passed by the Competent Authority. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed review petition, which was accepted and the appellant was exonerated vide..Order No, SO(AMI) 1-12/99, dated 23.8.2016. As a result thereof, the appellant was reinstated into service, however, the intervening period i,e, from 9.4.2013 to 23.08.2016 was ordered to be treated as leave of the kind due. The appellant again filed a review petition challenging the observations whereby the period in question was treated as leave of the kind due, which was dismissed by the Competent Authority and communicated to the appellant vide letter dated 14.9.2017. Hence, this appeal.
2. Arguments heard and the case file perused.
3. Due consideration having been given to the arguments put forth by both the sides, it has been observed that after reinstatement of the appellant into service, it was unfair on part of the Competent Authority to treat the period he remained out of service as leave of the kind due. No Justification was with the Authority to reinstate the appellant without back benefits, particularly when the Authority himself exonerated the appellant from the charge against him by observing that he had applied for leave/retirement on medical grounds but his request was not properly. attended by the Health Department. Rule 7.3 of Civil Service Rules, Punjab (Volume-I), Punjab is very much attracted in the instant case, which reads as under: 7.3. When the suspension of Government servant is held to have been unjustifiable or not wholly justifiable; or ["Where a Government Servant who was dismissed or removed from service is reinstated the revising or appellate authority may grant to him for the period of his absence from duty:
(a) If he is honourably acquitted, the full pay to which he would have been entitled if he had not been dismissed or removed and by an order to be separately recorded any allowances of which he was in receipt prior to his dismissal or removal; or'
(b) If otherwise, such proportion of such pay and allowances as the revising or appellate authority may prescribed."
In a case falling under clause (a) the period absence from duty will be treated as a period spent on duty. In a case falling, under clause (b) it will hot be treated as period spent on duty unless the revising or appellate authority so directs."
In the light of above-referred Rule 7.3 of CSR Punjab, the intervening period of the appellant i,e, (09.04.2013 to 23.08.2016) can only be adjusted as period spent on duty because the appellant cannot be held responsible for creation of the said period as he has been exonerated/honourably acquitted from the departmental proceedings.
4. Reliance is also placed on verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court of Pakistan, given in its judgment reported as 2013 SCMR 752, wherein it has been held that, "Once an employee was reinstated in service after exoneration of the charges leveled against him, the period during which he remained either suspended or dismissed could not be attributed as a fault on his part-- Exoneration of the charges meant that employee stood restored in service, as if he was never out of service of the employer---Period during which employee remained dismissed, therefore, was to be considered as period he "remained in service"---Since absence/not-attendance of employee at work was not voluntary on his part and'it was due to the steps taken by the employer, therefore, his service record could neither be adversely affected nor could he be denied any benefit to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended or dismissed".
5. Similarly, in another judgment reported as 2015 PLC (C.S) 366, IIon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held that, "Grant of back benefits to an employee who was reinstated by a Court/Tribunal or the Department was a rule and denial of such benefits was an exception on the proof that such person had remained gainfully employed during such period".
6. For the above discussed reasons, I am convinced that the I impugned orders dated 23.8.2016 and 14.9.2017 do not hold good to the effect or treatment of the intervening period as leave or the kind due. Therefore, the instant appeal is accepted, the impugned order dated 14.9.2017 is set aside and the impugned order dated 23.8.2016 is modified to the effect that the period w.e.f 9.4.2013 (date of appellant's compulsory retirement from service) till 23.8.2016 (date or appellant's reinstatement in service) is treated as "spent on duty" instead of "leave of the kind due". The appellant shall be paid all back benefits of pay and allowances etc. for the said period. Disposed of.