Find a Lawyer

Case No. 459/699 of 1980, decided on 4th November, 1982.

----S. 12 (ff) read with Provisional Constitution Order (P. O. 1 of 1981), Art. 13‑Retirement after completion of 25 years' service qualifying for pension‑Order passed by competent authority ‑ Allegation of malice not substantiated ‑ Appeal against retirement order, held, dismissed by Service Tribunal ‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

Ahmad Hussain Shah Bokhari for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.

.‑ Abdul Majeed, ex‑Officiating Sub‑Inspector Police has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Mir Mazhar Qayyum, Superintendent of Police, Muzaffargarh, Deputy Inspector- General of Police, Multan Range, Multan, Inspector‑ General of Police. Punjab, Lahore and Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order dated 4th January, 1980 passed by the respondent No. 1 and the order passed by respondent No. 2 dated 29th June, 1980 be set aside and the orders for the re‑instatement of the appellant be passed, with costs of the appeal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant has been retired under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, after completing 25 years of service qualifying for pension and other retirement benefits by Mir Mazhar Qayyum, Superintendent of Police, Muzafargath. The appellant filed a representation for a review which was heard by a three Members Review Committee headed by Malik Muhammad Sadique, Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Division, Multan as Chair man, Mr, Tariq Parviz, Addl. Superintendent of Police, Multaq and Sheikh Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, Superintendent of Police Crimes, Multan as Members, respectively, which was rejected, vide order, dated 29th June, 1980. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have also perused the record of this case very carefully. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the retirement of the appellant has been‑ as a result of malice oa the part of the competent authority. The appellant earned a 'C' report for the year 1978 from the Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal due to the reason that he was asked to vacate the rented house within 24 hours which he could not do so, due to the fact that there was no alternative arrangement to keep his family in any other accommodation: The Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal had grudge for this reason, as such, he mentioned the same in the Annual Confidential Report which was conveyed to him and the appellant preferred a representation for the same which was still pending for decision. Furthermore the learned counsel for the appellant sub mitted that the appellant was also retired by an incompetent authority. These arguments were controverted by the District Attorney submitting that the appellant has been retired by the competent authority i. e. Superintendent of Police, Muzaffargarh. Furthermore he rebutted the arguments of malice against Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal submitting that he was not the authority who has retired the appellant in this case and thus, Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal does not figure anywhere as a retiring authority or the Member of the Review Committee. Con cluding his arguments, the learned District Attorney submitted that the appellant has been retired by the competent authority i. e. Superinten dent of Police, Muzaffargarh and the appellant has also failed to prove malice as alleged by him.

5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments put forth by the parties and have also consulted the record. Now on this point, the law is settled according to which a civil servant who has completed his 25 years' service qualifying for all pension benefits, retired by a competent authority, in his case cannot agitate his claim against such retirement order as the said order is protected under Article 13 of the P. C. O., 1981. We have satisfied ourselves that the appellant wag retired by the competent authority and also the appellant hat failed to prove any malice in this case against the competent authority.

6. Keeping in view the above analysis, we find that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such.

There will be no orders as to costs. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.