' MUHAMAMD ISMAIL (MEMBER).---The appellant Nazir Ahmed, Sub-Engineer, Residency Survey, O&M Organization, Tarbela Dam Project, WAPDA is aggrieved by order dated 28-5-1992 of the competent Authority, whereby his suspension period from 24-1-1989 to 8-9-1989 has been regularized by granting him extraordinary leave without pay under the terms of F.R.
54. The appellant preferred a departmental appeal on 20-1-1993 and failing to get a decision within the stipulated period of ninety days, he came to this Tribunal with the present appeal filed on 15-5- 1993 with the following prayer:-- "(a) The period of suspension from 24-1-1989 to 8-9-1989 be treated as period spent on duty, OR
(b) the period of suspension from 24-1-1989 to 8-9-1989 be treated as earned leave."
2. The facts of the case in brief are that, the appellant while posted as Sub-Engineer in the Residency Survey, Tarbela Dam Project, WAPDA was initially suspended from service for three months by order dated 24-1-1989 of the Chief Engineer (AC&R), Tarbela Dam Project for the purpose of conducting an inquiry against him in connection with misplacement/loss of a Measurement Book. The period of his suspension was further extended for another three months, which expired on 23-7-1989. Thereafter, neither his suspension period was .Extended nor he was reinstated in service till 8-9-1989. The appellant was, however, reinstated in service with effect from 9-9-1989, pending outcome of the disciplinary proceedings already initiated against him. On the conclusion of the departmental proceedings, the appellant was found guilty of misconduct and he was imposed a major penalty of reduction to a lower time scale (from BPS 16 to BPS 11) for one year by order dated 22-8-1991, passed by the competent Authority. The appellant then filed Service Appeal No,12(R)/92 on 12-1-1992, before this Tribunal, which was dismissed on 3-2-1993. In the meanwhile the period of suspension of the appellant from 24-1-1989 to 8-9-1991, was decided by the General Manager and Project Director, vide order dated 28-5-1992, treating the same as extraordinary leave (without pay) under the terms of F.R.
54. The appellant challenged this order in a departmental appeal on 20-1-1993 and failing to get any decision within the statutory period of 90 days. He came to this Tribunal with the present appeal filed on 15-5-1993, for the requisite relief.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that, while the appellant was on four months earned leave with effect from 21-1-1989, he was illegally suspended from service by order dated 24-1-1989 of the Chief Engineer, who also cancelled his earned leave by another order dated 8-2- 1989. He further submitted that the appellant's suspension from 24-7-1989 to 8-9-1989 was illegal and unlawful, as no departmental authority has passed any order for extending the period of his suspension beyond 23-7-1989. The learned counsel further contended, that the impugned order dated 28-5-1992, treating the entire period of suspension from 24-1-1989 to 8-9-1989, as extraordinary leave (without pay) could not be passed long after the order of penalty had been made on 22-8-1991 by the competent Authority. He argued that since in the order of penalty, the period of suspension was not treated as extraordinary leave (without pay), the period shall be deemed to have been treated as period spent on duty. The impugned order therefore, amounted to depriving the appellant of a right which had already vested in him.
4. On the other hand, the respondents have resisted the appeal and filed written objections. A preliminary objection has also been raised regarding maintainability of the appeal on the point of limitation. On merits, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the appellant's suspension period from 24-1-1989 to 8-9-1989 has already been regularised by the competent Authority vide order dated 28-5-1992, treating the same as extraordinary leave (without pay) under the terms of F.R. 54, on the ground that a major penalty has been imposed on him and the appeal filed by him before the Federal Service Tribunal was also dismissed on 3-2-1993. Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 28-5-1992 is proper and in accordance with law and may not be set aside.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. The respondents' objection on the point of limitation needs to be dealt with first. The appellant has field an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The reason for delay given in this application is that the impugned order was made by the General Manager on 28-5- 1992. It was communicated to him by a covering letter dated 23-12-1992, as the original order was not received by him. Therefore, the departmental appeal filed by the appellant on 20-1-1993 was well within time. In these circumstances, the respondents' objection on the point of limitation appears to be misconceived.
6. On merits, the impugned order dated 28-5-1992, shows that the entire period from 24-1-1989 to 8-9-1989 has been treated as extraordinary leave (without pay) under the term s of F.R.
54. The record shows that the appellant was initially suspended on 24-1-1989 for a period of three months. It was further extended for another period of three months which expired on 23-7-1989.
The respondents have failed to place on record any order showing that the appellant's suspension was further extended beyond 23-7-1989 and up to 8-91989. Under the circumstances, and in the absence of any specific order, extending suspension period of the appellant from 24-7-1989 to 8- 9-1989 the period in question shall be treated as having been spent on duty and the appellant shall be entitled to full pay and other benefits as admissible to him under the rules. ,As regards the period of suspension from 24-1-1989 to 23-7-1989, the order of the competent Authority, treating the same as extraordinary leave (without pay) is proper and in accordance with the rules and calls for no interference, as the same has been decided in terms of F.R.54(b). The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs. Parties to be informed.