Find a Lawyer

Case No.58/164 of 1983, decided on 28th November, 1983.

‑‑‑S. 12(ii)‑‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 13‑‑Civil servant retired on completing 25 years service with full pension benefits‑‑Alleged malice not established‑‑Order could not be interfered with.

Raja Muhammad Anwar for Appellant.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

‑‑Muhammad Sadiq Altaf, Forest Ranger (on L.P.R.) has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has challenged the order, dated 8‑11‑1982, issued in the name of the Governor of Punjab under the signatures of Syed Naseer Ahmad, Secretary Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries Department, by which he has been retired after completion of 25 years service under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. He has impleaded the Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries Department and Chief Conservator of Forests, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order be set aside as being illegal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was retired on 8‑11‑1982, by the Governor of the Punjab vide Notification No. E‑III 10‑6/82, dated 8‑11‑1982. He filed a representation against the said retirement. His case was reviewed by the Review Board which was ultimately rejected. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has all along during the course of arguments, laid lot of stress about the excellent record of service performed by the appellant in the department and has submitted that in fact he was retired on the basis of adverse A.C.R. given by Mr. Muhammad Raft who latter on rejected his appeal for expunction of the same when he became Chief Conservator of Forests. In this way he has argued that his retirement is due to malice on the part of Mr. Muhammad Rafi. He has also made allegations against Ch. Ghulam Rasool who was then Conservator of Forests. Similarly it has been submitted that his A.C.R. for the period 1‑1‑1972 to 8‑4‑1972, was written by Mian Muhammad Raft, Chief Conservator Forests, Multan Region, who recorded remarks 'reputation doubtful', although there was no complaint against the appellant. It has been submitted that the appeal came before Mian Muhammad Rafi, who himself decided the appeal although. the appeal was against his own order. In this way the earlier argument has been reiterated that the retirement of the appellant was due to the maneouvering of these officers and be struck down as an act of malice.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has taken preliminary objection to the factual position of the present appeal so filed by the appellant by submitting that no appeal lie in case where a person has been retired under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, in view of the protection so granted by the Provisional Constitutional Order, 1981. It has been submitted that the appellant had filed review petition which is still pending in the department and unless the said appeal is decided, this appeal would be premature. With regard to the facts of the case, the learned District Attorney has submitted that the synopsis of the entire service of the appellant so placed on the record by him, shows that he started getting adverse reports on his work and conduct for a number of irregularities from the beginning to the end of his career. It has been argued that one or two Reporting Officers may be biased, but not all the reporting, countersigning and second countersigning officers, who have consistently rated him as a below average and has termed him poor worker as regards his out put and general conduct, It has been further argued that unless and until the appellant is in a position to prove malice with the competent authority, who in his case was Governor, the order of the retirement cannot be struck down.

We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and have consulted the record of this case very carefully. The perusal of the synopsis shows that the tall claim of the appellant in regard to his meritorious service as well as unblemished career is nothing but a figment of his own imagination. Right from 1958 till 1980, he has earned very poor reports from time to time from various officers and thus it cannot be said that as Ch. Ghulam Rasool and Mian Muhammad Raft were in any way biased against him, therefore, he has been retired from service. This being the factual position of the service record of the appellant and a number of adverse reports against him besides of Ch. Ghulam Rasool and Mian Muhammad Raft, we have no hesitation to hold that he has failed to prove the act of malice against officers before Ch. Ghulam Rasool and Mian Muhammad Raft. The appellant has been retired under the orders of the Governor of the Punjab, issued by the Secretary, Forestry and Wildlife and Fisheries Department and his review petition has been. rejected by the Review Board against whom the appellant has not alleged any act of malice. The law on this point is now settled once for all that in case where a civil servant has been retired under section 12(ii) with full pension benefits, the same cannot be interfered with either by this Tribunal, High Court as well as by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, as Article 13 of the P. C.O. 1981, has given complete protection to this act.

8. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the retirement of the appellant is a retirement simplicitor under provision of law, which empowers the Governor to do so and the said action cannot be taken exception to as the same is protected by the Provisional Constitutional Order, 1981. The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable as well being without any merit.

There will be no order as to costs.

M.I.

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.