A. O. RAZIUR RAHMAN (MEMBER).-This appeal has been preferred against an order dated 11-10- 1980, passed by the Divisional Superintendent, RMS `R' Division, Rawalpindi, by which the appellant who had been asked to go on forced leave, under rule 5 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, by order of the Authorised Officer, the appellant was, after decision of the departmental case against him, granted leave for a total number of 254 days from 28-12-1978 to 7-9-1979, and against a subsequent order, passed by the Postmaster-General, Northern Circle, Rawalpindi, on 2-3-1981, by which a representation of the appellant, dated 20-6-1980, against the said order of the Divisional Superintendent was rejected by the Postmaster-General, Northern Circle.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was proceeded against for misconduct and sent on forced leave from 28-12-1978, to 7-9-78 by an order dated 30-12-1978, passed by the Divisional Superintendent, RMS `R' Divi--sion, Rawalpindi. Subsequently, the Divisional Superintendent served the appellant with a Memo. Of charges on 6-2-1979, on a number of counts. No Inquiry Officer was appointed in the case, but, after examining the relevant documents, with reference to the charges, and taking into consi--deration the defence put up by the official in his written statement, the Deputy Postmaster-General awarded him the penalty of reduction by two steps in his own scale of pay for a period of three years, with immediate effect. Later, on appeal having been preferred by the official, the Postmaster---General, Northern Circle, Rawalpindi, by his order dated 4-5-1980, reduced the punishment from two steps to one and from a period of three years to one year without any future effect. The appellant filed a Review Petition before the appellate authority on 23- 6-1980, which was not decided for quite some time. Thereafter, he came up in appeal before this Tribunal on 27-8-1980. After hearing the appellant in person on 28-9-1980, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine, on the ground that it was heavily time-barred. Meanwhile, a decision appears to have been taken by the Authority to regularise the period of forced leave, on which the appellant had been ordered to proceed at the time of the departmental proceedings against' him. This decision is contained in the impugned order dated 11-10-1980, already referred to above, and upheld by the subsequent order of the appellate authority dated 2-3-1981, also referred to above.
The appeal against the final order which was filed before this Tribunal on 25-3-1981, being within time and having been admitted after, preliminary hearing on 29-9-1981, came up for regular hearing today and is being disposed of by this order.
3. The main contention of the appellant is that the rules on the subject do not permit deprivation of an employee of the Government of his entitlement to full pay for the period of forced leave in the event of the infliction of a penalty other than those enumerated in rule 8-A of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The respondent, namely, the Postmaster-General, Northern Circle, Rawalpindi, in his written objections filed before us took the stand that the punishment, namely, reduction in pay which was ordered in the departmental proceedings against the appellant amounted to reduction in rank as contemplated in rule 8-A of the Government Servants (E & D) Rules, 1973 and, therefore, the authorities were justified in not treating the period of forced leave as one on duty. It was categorically stated that the penalty was in accordance with the law and that the order was also passed in a legal manner.
4. We heard the appellant in person, who briefly drew our attention to rule 8-A of the Government Servants (E & D) Rules. The learned counsel for the State also conceded that the said rule very clearly enjoins on the authorities to require a Government servant to rejoin duty and to treat the period of forced leave as duty on full pay, in all cases where the said servant, having been required to proceed on leave under rule 5 (1) (i) is not dismissed or removed from service or reduced in rank or compulsorily retired. Since, in the appellant's case, none of these punishments was inflicted, he was entitled to rejoin duty and to be given full pay for the period of leave treating it as duty. The law being very clear on the point, we are not prepared to accept the absurd proposition that reduction to a lower stage in the time scale which was ordered m the case of the appellant amounted to reduction in rank. Pay and rank are two entirely distinct matters and reduction in pay cannot be treated as equivalent to reduction in rank. This position was frankly accepted by the learned counsel for the State' and we do not think it necessary to go any further into this question.
5. In view of the above position, we have no hesitation in finding that the appeal deserves to be allowed. But, before parting with the case, we would like to observe that the departmental appellate authority in the present case, in his very cryptic order dated 2-3-1981, did not adduce any reason for rejecting the departmental appeal of the employee, which shows that sufficient attention was not given to the matter and that the case was treated in a very routine manner. This, unfortunately, caused avoidable harassment to the appellant and unnecessary waste of time money and energy to various persons and agencies including this Tribunal. It would be a good thing if the concerned departmental authorities carefully checked up with reference to the rules before upholding orders passed by the subordinates and refrained from supporting actions of these subordinates as a matter of course.
6. In the result, we allow the appeal and order that the appellant shall be treated as having been on duty from 28-12-1978 to 7-9-1979 and direct that the period of forced leave shall be treated as duty, for which he shall receive full pay.
7. No order as to costs.