1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUSHTAK ALI KAZI (CHAIRMAN).

Appellant Imtiaz Muhammad Khan 'was serving as Sub‑Inspector of Police when he was retired from service by Superintendent of Police. Hyderabad under section 13 (l) of the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973 in public interest, with effect from 1st June, 1976. Appellant Imtiaz Muhammad Khan made a representation to the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Hyderabad against retirement on completion of 25 years' service qualifying for pension. His representation was rejected against him. The Accountant- General, Sind, Karachi however pointed out to the Department that the appellant had not completed 25 years' service qualifying for pension because the appellant while serving in the enforcement Police had remained under suspension from 16th July, 1949 to 4th March, 1951 and this period had not been regularized when he was re‑instated. He had also remained on extraordinary leave for 2 years, 1 month and 4 days. Since the order of retirement was bad and was cancelled and the appellant was re‑instated in service by an order dated 12th December, 1977 passed by the D.I.G. Police, Hyderabad, the intervening period was decided to be counted as on leave of the kind due. The appellant was accordingly allowed 4 months leave of full pay from 1st June, 1976, he was thereafter allowed leave on half pay from 1st October, 1976 to 31st May 1977. The remaining period upto 14th December 1977 consisting of 6 months and 14 days was to be counted as extraordinary leave without pay. Against the above orders the appellant filed petition before the Inspector‑General of Police, Sind on 13th December, 1977 requesting that this intervening period be treated as duty, but the petition was rejected by the I. G. of Police, Sind. Being aggrieved by the order of the Inspector‑General of Police, the Sub‑Inspector preferred this appeal under section 4 of the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973 on 29th October, 1979. It has been argued by Mr. Aftab Ahmed Sheikh on behalf of the appellant that the premature retirement orders of the appellant were vacated as he had not completed 25 years' service qualifying for pension as provided under section 13 (1) of the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973. He was then re‑instated in service ; but for the intervening period he was denied his meagre salary of Rs. 280 p.m. by treating this period as on leave. That the retirement order had been wrongly passed by the department through misapprehension or by mistake and the appellant on cancellation of the wrong order has been made to suffer and has been deprived of his salary. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General Mr. Hassan Akbar concedes that the premature retirement order was passed through oversight. However he has contended, that the Government may require any Govern ment Servant to proceed on leave in public interest. However in the present case the intervening period between the wrong retirement and re‑instatement has simply been treated, as on leave of kind due, and this is not the case of a Government servant having been asked to proceed on leave. Without service of a proper show‑cause notice under Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules, the appellant cannot be punished and deprived of his salary. The procedure for inflicting any such punishment has not been followed in his case. The intervening period from 1st June 1976 to 14th December 1977 is therefore to be treated as duty and not as on leave of the kind due as already ordered by the Inspector‑General of Police. This appeal is accordingly allowed. No order is however made as to costs. Appeal allowed.