Eileen Davie, former president of the Mental Health Tribunal, Scotland received around £150,000 pay and a £78,000 boost to her pension pot despite being absent for 11 months.

While she was away her role was filled by acting president Dr Joe Morrow, who was also paid a six-figure salary. Mrs Davie “absented herself” from the MHTS in November 2007 in the wake of a critical report by watchdogs into the body’s administration, but did not formally resign until October 2008.

The pay deal was signed off by the Scottish Government health department. Robert Black, Scotland’s Auditor General, has now highlighted the “significant” sums she got in a report to MSPs.

The Government last night refused to explain the mystery absence from work, citing Mrs Davie’s privacy. However, opposition MSPs questioned the use of scarce public resources. Holyrood’s Public Audit Committee is now expected to demand answers in the New Year.

Designed to improve patient welfare, the MHTS uses small panels of legal and medical experts to make decisions on the compulsory care and treatment of people with mental health problems. The decisions were previously made by the courts.

Last year the MHTS had a budget of £10.5million and held 4299 hearings. Mrs Davie, 64, a former psychiatric social worker who retrained as an advocate, was appointed MHTS’s first president in February 2005. Her pay deal is revealed in the MHTS accounts for 2008-09, published last week.

In his report, Mr Black said: “Based on the information in the accounts the remuneration during the 11 months’ absence was between £146,000 and £153,000.”

Mr Black said £297,000 had been earmarked for Mrs Davie’s pension pot in respect of her three years and eight months as president, noting: “Pro-rata, some £78,000 of this cost accrued during the absence period.”

He added: “The remuneration paid to the former president during her absence was significant. I am therefore drawing these costs to the parliament’s attention.”

Jackie Baillie, Labour’s health spokeswoman, said: “It is unusual for the Auditor General to comment in this way, which suggests paying a civil servant when she has been absent from her work has not been the most effective use of public money.”

A Government spokeswoman said: “Under the requirements of data protection, which secures the individual’s entitlement to privacy in respect of personal information, we do not intend to comment further.”