Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. 136/342 of 1978, decided on 12th September 1979.
‑‑ S. 12(ii) read with Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Condi tions of Service) Rules, 1974, r. 6‑Retirement on completion of 25 years' service qualifying for pension‑Competence‑Appointing authority‑Appointing authority of Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent Jails‑Government‑Retirement order of Superintendent, Jail passed by Government‑Designation erroneously mentioned as Deputy Superintendent in retirement order‑An omission remedi able‑Order, in circumstances, held, not exceptionable.
This appeal is directed against the order of Government dated 29‑10‑1977 directing retirement of the appellant under section 12 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and the subsequent order dated 9th April, 1978 rejecting his representation against the same.
2. The impugned orders are assailed on the ground that earlier the Departmental authorities had ordered his reversion which was set aside in July 1977 by the Punjab Services Appellate Tribunal and thus he stood reinstated in the post of Superintendent Jail and he could not be retired by the Impugned order in October, 1977, as Deputy Superintendent Jail. According to the appellant the order is incompetent and mala fide.
3. We have perused the relevant recruitment rules according to which the appointing authority both in the case of Dy. Superintendent and Superintendent, Jail is the Government of Punjab. According to rule 6 of the Punjab Government Servants (Appointments and Conditions) Rules, 1974, in case of grade 17 and above, the appointing authority had been prescribed as the Government and the order has been passed by the competent authority. The only exception which could possibly be taken against the order is that the appellant was not a Dy. Superintendent, Jail at the relevant time. In our opinion the defect cart be remedied by supplying requisite omission. We accordingly direct that the designation of the appellant may be read as Superintendent, Jail instead of Deputy Superintendent Jail. As regards the plea of mala fide, the appellant has not been able to produce anything to substantiate his contention. Same is, therefore, repelled. In the result the appeal is disposed of with the modification above.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer