Find a Lawyer

Case No. 243 of 1982, decided on 1st November, 1982.

‑‑S. 12 (ii) read with Provisional Constitution Order (P. O. 1 of 1981), Art. 13‑Retirement after completion of 25 years service qualifying for pension by competent authority ‑Appeal before Tribunal not maintainable to challenge such order‑Malice‑Contention based upon fact that show‑cause notice for certain alleged misconduct served but rescinded when challenged before High Court and retire ment order passed immediately after matter disposed of by High Court as becoming infructuous‑Not accepted‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

Nisar Qutab for Appellant.

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

Mr. Mumtaz 'Ahmad has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Secretary to Government of Punjab (Settlement and Rehabilitation Department), Board of Revenue (S & R Wing), Lahore, and Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order be set aside and he may lie re‑instated in service with all back benefits. This case has come before us for admission today. The learned counsel has argued that the appellant's retirement under section 12, clause (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 is not maintainable although the same has been maintained by the competent authority. In this manner the learned counsel has conceded that the appellant was retired after completion of 25 years of service qualifying for pension benefits etc. and that too by the competent authority. According to the law so settled, such action is protected under Article 13 of P.L.O. of 1981. However, the ground of malice remains always open in view of our judgment delivered in case of Shahi‑ur‑Raza v. 1.‑G.P. When confronted with this situation the learned counsel has submitted that in fact the appellant was served with a show‑cause notice alongwith others, for certain acts of omissions and commissions by him during the course of his duties but when the matter was challenges before the High Court, the respondent rescinded the notice and the matter was disposed of by the High Court as infructuous. The stress has been laid by the learned counsel for the appellant on the fact that immediately after the disposal of the said issue before the High Court, the respondent immediately proceeded under section 12 (ii) against the appellant, and thus it was a colourable exercise of power by the respondent against the appellant.

3. We have considered this point as nothing else has been said beyond this and we are of the considered opinion that retirement under clause (ii) of section 12 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, is fully protected under Article 13 of the P.C.O. 1981, as held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan that there would be a matter between the employer and an employee in which case, even an employee can also serve the employer with a notice that B he should be retired with full pension benefits after completion of 25 years of service. The malice has been fully defined by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Saeed Ahmad's case, therefore, the case of allegation of malice so mentioned above does not fall within the ambit of the said pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case so mentioned above.

4. The result is we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is dismissed, with no order 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.