The petitioner was suspended from his post as Store Officer, G. T. S., D. G. Khan, by an order dated 2- 4-1971, by the Chairman of the Punjab Road Transport Corporation, Lahore. He was allowed to draw 1/3rd of his pay as subsistence Allowance during the period of suspension. The; petitioner filed this writ petition on various grounds challenging the order of the suspension passed against him.
2. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Punjab Road Transport Corporation, Lahore, abolished certain posts of Store-Officers with effect from 26-6-72, including the post of Store Officer, G. T. S., D. G. Khan. The petitioner challenged the said order of abolition of the post by a separate writ petition, namely, W. P. No. 1480/S/71, which, however, was dismissed.
3. The only question that requires determination in the present writ petition, in the above circumstances, is whether the petitioner is entitled to draw full salary during the period or suspension or only 1/3rd of his pay; allowed to him as subsistence allowance vide orders dated 2- 4-1971.
4. Rule 25.1 of the West Pakistan Road Transport Board Service Rules, 1959, lays down that "a competent authority may suspend an employee of the Board, pending enquiry/enquiries into his conduct. 1n such cases, the emoluments permitted shall not exceed 1/4th of his pay plus full allowances. If on enquiry she employee Is honourably acquitted he shall be re-instated from the date of suspension and shall draw full pay and allowances.. . . . . If the employee is found guilty of the charge/charges framed against him then because other punishment that nay be imposed lie shall draw 1/4th of his pay and allowance already sanctioned".
The above rule makes it clear that an employee can be suspended rending enquiry or enquiries into hit conduct for the purpose of ascertaining whether the charges frame against him are correct or rot. If he is found guilt he shall draw only the pay and allowances already sanctioned to him during' the period (if suspension; otherwise he shall be re-instated from the date of suspension and draw full pay and allowances. The situation in the instant case is somewhat unusual. After the petitioner was suspended pending the enquiry into the irregularities alleged to have been committed by him, the post itself was abolished before the conclusion or the enquiry. The result is that the petitioner has not been found guilty of the irregularities alleged to have been committed by him during the period lie continued in service. But now as he no longer continues to be an employee of the respondent-Corporation, no further enquiry in this connection can be held. It can hardly be disputed that an employee Is placed under suspension in order that the allegations of misconduct levelled against him may be required into with a view to determining whether the hares levelled against him arc true or not and whether he iv s fit person to be retained in service.
'The rules do not provide for the suspension of an employee where his services are to he dispensed with not on account of his undesirability, but on account of the abolition of the post that he is holding. The reason is that an order of suspension can only be passed pending enquiry into his conduct and if as a result of the enquiry an order of dismissal or removal is not to follow the question of suspending such an employee would not arise: In this view of the matter the order of suspen--sion passed against the petitioner cannot be sustained. I, hold, therefore that the order of suspension dated 2-4-1971, passed against the petitioner is in the circumstances of this case, not an order with lawful authority.
5. The result is that the said order is declared to have been passed against law and without lawful authority and is hereby declared to be of no legal effect. Consequently, the petitioner shall be entitled to his full salary from 2-4-1971, until 26-6-1972. The parties shall, however, he left to bear their own costs.