ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---Appellant Mr. Habib Ahmed was working as Registration Clerk in the District Registration Office, Turbat. He remained absent from duty from 18- 7-1992 to 6-8-1992, Accordingly, he was served with a show-cause notice dated 20-8-1992 to which he replied and stated that he received a telephonic message from his village Khipro, District Sanghar, that his wife was seriously ill on account of delivery, and therefore, he had to rush to his village in emergency and he could not inform the authorities. He has also stated that on reaching his village, he came to know that his other family members were also sick. He submitted that he started for Turbat on 29-7-1992 and he had to stay in Karachi, due to heavy rains, as transport was not available for Turbat where he was held up. He reached Turbat on 8-8-1992 and joined duty when he came to know that he had been treated as absent from duty by the Director. In support, he also submitted a medical certificate of illness of his wife and birth certificate of his son. Finally, the competent authority not being satisfied with the reply of the appellant, passed impugned order, dated 4th March, 1993 where under penalty of reduction of three stages in his time scale was imposed on appellant. Being aggrieved, he made a departmental appeal but there was no response. He then filed this appeal before the Tribunal on 19-4-1994.
2. We have heard the appellant. It is argued that due to the circumstances beyond his control, he was forced to leave headquarter, i.e. Turbat for his village and being upset, he could not apply for leave. It is argued that time limit has not been fixed while imposing the penalty of reduction of three stages in his time scale and it is violative of FR-29, and the order is illegal.
3. Mr. Niaz Ahmed Khan, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that un- authorised absence of the appellant has been proved but under FR 29, the competent authority should have fixed the period of reduction of three stages in tile time scale and to this extent, the appeal merits consideration.
4. The admitted position is that the appellant remained absent from duty with effect from 18-7- 1992 to 6-8-1992 without leave. He did not submit leave application while leaving the place of duty nor submitted any application from his village. As such, his un-authorised absence stands proved.
It was incumbent upon the appellant to have submitted leave application before the concerned authorities, before leaving the place of duty or even after that whatever may be the circumstances, but the appellant left the place of duty on self-sanctioned leave. As such, his absence from duty without leave application is misconduct, and the appellant has no case on merits. However, we are inclined to accept his contention that period of reduction had to be mentioned in the impugned order under FR 29,and the relevant rule reads as under:-- "FR-29. If a Government servant' is, on account of misconduct or inefficiency, reduced to a lower grade or post or to a lower stage in his' time scale, the authority ordering such reduction shall state the period for which it shall be effective and whether, on restoration, it shall operate to postpone future increments and if so, to what extent."
From the above provisions, it is clear that it is mandatory for the punishing authority to specify the period for which reduction will be effective and on restoration 49 his original position, it shall or shall not operate to postpone future increments and to what extent. This having not been done in the present case, the impugned order is defective and illegal, because a civil servant cannot be deprived of his dues for whole life. We, therefore, accept the appeal to the extent that the impugned order of reduction of the appellant of three stages in his time scale shall remain in field for one year and thereafter the appellant's position shall be restored to his original position without postponement of future increments.