ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Sh. Muhammad Yasin has made this appeal to the Punjab Service Tribunal and has impleaded Government of the Punjab, through Collector Sahiwal, Assistant Director, Local Government and Rural Development, Sahiwal and Director, Local Government and Rural. Development, Multan Division, Muitan, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that part of para. 2 of impugned order No. LG-lj3676 dated 31-8-1980 passed by respondent No. 2, from words ; "While dealing with this case-to-remained under suspension" be directed to be deleted. He has also prayed that the suspension period be allowed to be treated on duty and dues of this suspension period be paid to him.
3. Brief-facts of the case are that the appellant Sh. Muhammad Yasin, Rural Development Worker, Union Council No. 115, Tehsil Okara was placed under suspension vide order of Assistant Director, Local Government and Rural Development, Sahiwal, No. LG-I/2477-80 dated 23-6-1980. He was served with a show-cause notice, dated 1-7-1980, on the ground that he was habitual in lodging baseless complaints against his imme--diate officers. However, he was exonerated from the charges levelled against him vide impugned order No. LG-1/3676 dated 31-8-1980, passed by the Assistant Director, Local Government and Rural Development, Sahiwal, but he was allowed nothing more than subsistence allowance for the period he remained under suspension vide this impugned order. The appellant made a review petition to the respondent No. 2 but it has not so far been decided He made an appeal to respondent No. 3 against the decision of respondent No. 2 which is also pending. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties. The appellant has argued that as he has been exonerated from the charges levelled against him as mentioned in the impugned order dated 31-8-1980 hence, there is no justification for not treating his suspension period on duty. He has prayed that this impugned order be directed to be modified to the extent that the appellant be treated on duty for the suspension period as he stood exonerated from the charges levelled against him. Controverting these arguments the learned District Attorney has submitted that this is within the discretion and competency of the authority to allow the appellant suspension period on duty or otherwise as per rules and thus the request of the appellant is uncalled for and is unjustified.
5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of parties and have also perused the impugned order No. LG-1/3676 dated 31-8-1980. It has been clearly laid down in para. 2 of this order as follows :-.
"Keeping in view the circumstances explained by him he is hereby exonerated from the charges levelled against him. but in the lower part of the same para. It has been mentioned as follows :- "While dealing with this case, it transpired that the Rural Develop--ment Worker is in the habit of making direct correspondence with the higher Authorities and giving applications against his superiors. On pointing his conduct on this couct, he apologised for his past misdeeds and was fully repentant on his behaviour. Keeping in view his written apology he is being let of this time with a final chance to improve his loyalty and working in this department. Any instance -of slightest administrative deviation noticed in his behaviour in future would warrant severe disciplinary action against him and dismissal from service would be the minimum possible penalty for the same. He will get nothing more than subsistence allowance for the period he remained under suspension. He is therefore, reinstated and posted in Union Council No. 170 (128;EB) R. D. Markiz, Muhammad Nagar, Tehsil Pakpattan."
From the perusal of above para. It is clear that the appellant was exonerated from the charges levelled against him and thus the wording of the same para. From --- While dealing with this case to possible penalty for the same" is superfluous, contradictory and unjustified. A Furthermore there is no justification for not treating the appellant' suspension period on duty, when the appellant has been exonerated from the charges levelled against him by the competent authority.
6. Keeping the-above analysis in view, the appeal of the appellant is accepted. He is directed to be treated on duty for the suspension period and dues to be paid accordingly.
There will be no orders as to costs.