Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that he was an employee of the Health Department and was confirmed as Sanitary Inspector in Nov., 1966. He made an application for study leave on June 14, 1968, but he was not granted the leave. Without obtaining prior sanction, he proceeded on July 22, 1968, for higher studies. He wanted to join the department on May 28, 1969, but he was not allowed to do so. On July 12, 1969, the petitioner was suspended and later a charge-sheet was served upon him. He was, however, reinstated on Sept. 28, 1970, with a warning for the lapses on his part and be was further directed to be careful in future. Regarding the period of suspension, it was ordered that the same be treated as leave of the kind due. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order inter alia on the ground that the punishing authority could not treat the period of suspension as leave of the kind due without his prior consent The writ petition has been contested by the respondents.
(2.) The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the punishing authority could not treat the period of suspension as leave of the kind due without the prior consent of the petitioner. In support of his contention, he places reliance on proviso to sub-rule (7) of Rule 73-B of the Punjab Civil Services rules, Volume I, Part I (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).
(3.) I have given due consideration to the argument of the learned counsel and find force in it. Rule 7.3-B applies to the Government employee who bad been suspended and reinstated. Sub-rule (7) says that in a case falling under sub-rule (5), the period of suspension shall not be treated as a period spent on duty unless the competent authority specifically directs that it shall be so treated for any specified purpose. A proviso has been added to the sub-rule, which says that if a Government employee so desires, such authority may order that the period of suspension shall be converted into leave of any kind due and admissible to the Government employee. The grievance of the petitioner is that before treating his suspension period as leave of the kind due he was not asked by the authority concerned whether he should do go or not. The proviso requires the authority to make an enquiry from the Government employee in that regard and thereafter it can treat the period of suspension as leave of the kind due. In case the Government employee does not want that his period of suspension should be treated as leave of the kind due, the authority can proceed under sub-rule (5) of the Rules and decide as to what payment is to be made to him for the period of suspension, in that eventuality, the employee has to be given a notice. As the aforesaid procedure has not been followed, therefore, the impugned order is bad to that extent.;