'The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 21st March, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. The appellant was involved in a criminal case and was suspended during three different periods as under :-
(1) From 27th April, 1976 to 13th December, 1976
(2) From 3rd August, 1977 to 27th December, 1978 and
(3) From 2nd June, 1979 to 27th February, 1982.
' During suspension the appellant had been receiving subsistence allowance equal to half of his pay and allowances. He was acquitted from the criminal case and was thus finally reinstated. It was decided vide order Exh. P. 3 to deduct the amount of subsistence allowance received by the appellant during suspension. The claim of the appellant is that he is entitled to full pay without the adjustment of the suspension allowance received by him. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to Appendix-XXXI and has argued that since the appellant was suspended on account of being involved in a criminal case and his equittal is not honourable, he, according to rule 2043, is not entitled to cull amount. This argument is misconceived. The suspension of the appellant was not warranted by the Appendix referred to above. Because this is nobody's case that he had been sent to prison on account of registration of the criminal case. Under the Appendix an employee is suspended as of necessity, since he is not available for rendering his duty. The Appendix does not say that if an employee has been involved in a criminal case, he be suspended.
This is also nobody's case that the appellant was charge sheeted and after holding an enquiry was dismissed. Even if this Appendix is applied, it helps the appellant inasmuch as it says that full amount be paid when an employee has been acquitted of the blame. Admittedly, the appellant has been acquitted in both the criminal cases and thus he stands acquitted of the blames. Even under rule 2044 the appellant is entitled to full payment minus the subsistence allowance already drawn by him during suspension. He was not dismissed and he has been acquitted from the criminal charge. As he was not taken to task departmentally and was wrongly suspended on account of the involvement in the criminal cases in which he is not alleged, to have been arrested and sent to judicial lock-up, so on the termination of suspension he is to be considered to have been honourably acquitted. Rule 204(a) applies to him and he is entitled to full emoluments to which he would have been entitled but for his suspension. However, the suspension allowance and other allowances that he had been receiving during his suspensions are to be deducted. So, full pay after adjustment of suspension allowance should have been allowed to him and not 2/3 of the pay.
3. As a result, the appeal is accepted partly and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court and the order Exh. P. 3, the respondent is directed to allow to the appellant full emoluments minus subsistence allowance and other allowances received by him during his suspensions.