Find a Lawyer

Case No. 834/1150 of 1984, decided on 1st July, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 12(ii)‑‑Retirement after 25 years service qualifying for pension‑‑Not a punishment‑‑Plea that order was illegal for want of show‑cause notice‑ Repelled.

‑‑‑R. 1.8 (b)‑‑Recovery of losses caused by Government servants‑ Enquiry instituted and Enquiry Officer appointed within one year of retirement‑‑Plea that after retirement Government Servant concerned was no more a civil servant hence no proceedings could be undertaken‑ Plea, in circumstances, repelled.

‑‑‑Disciplinary proceedings‑‑Enquiry‑‑Witness offered by accused on Oath in mosque and witness accepting such offer taking oath accordingly in presence of accused and others‑‑Accused, in circumstances, held, naturally liable to result of such oath.

Akhtar Mir Warsi for Appellant.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondent.

‑‑Muhammad Khan Cheema, ex‑Agricultural Officer, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department, Lahore, as respondent.

2. By virtue of this appeal, he has prayed that the impugned order, dated 30‑5‑1983 and 18‑6‑1984, passed by the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department, be set aside as illegal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was retired under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, by order of the Governor of the Punjab, dated 30‑5‑1983, the said Secretary imposed upon him major penalty of compulsory retirement and by a subsequent order, dated 18‑6‑1984, major penalty of recovery of Government dues of Rs.7,723.97 and Rs.1,762.50 (Rs.9,486.47) which were to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the entire record of this case with their assistance.

5. As the appeal of the appellant deals with .two grievances viz., his retirement under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 by the Governor of the Punjab and imposition of major penalty of recovery of Rs.9,486.47, therefore, we will deal with these grievances as under:

With regard to the order of retirement the only grievance made by the learned counsel for the appellant that no show‑cause notice was issued to him before he was so compulsorily retired, therefore, the, order was illegal. We are afraid that this plea of the appellant is untenable as the retirement under clause 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, is never considered as compulsory retirement nor, as a punishment but the same is effected when a civil servant completes 25 years service and the authority under the said clause 12(ii) of the Act can retire him without any blemish. The action of the authority now stands protected under para. 15 of the P.C.O. 1980, therefore, in view of the above we do not find any justification to interfere with this order of retirement under the circumstances mentioned above.

6. With regard to the second grievance which relates to the imposition of major penalty in the nature of recovery of Rs.9,486.47, learned counsel for the appellant first of all assails the said imposition of penalty on the ground that as the appellant stood retired on 30‑5‑1983, he could not be proceeded against by the Government as he was no more a civil servant and if at all any proceedings had to be taken against him as envisaged in the Pension Rules the same could not be taken in hand after the expiry of one year. We have consulted the record and find that the inquiry was taken in hand against the appellant on 11‑5‑1982 the date on which Enquiry Officer was appointed by the Director Extension Agriculture, Punjab to conduct inquiry of embezzlement etc. In view of this factual position, the legal plea of the appellant is repelled as being without any force.

7. So far as merits of the case are concerned we find that during the course of preliminary inquiry against the appellant which was conducted earlier, it came to light that the appellant while posted as Agriculture Officer, Kamalia, borrowed Rs.1,000 from Bashir Ahmad, Field Assistant. To reconcile/ settle the transaction of Rs.1,000 the appellant received back 39 liters of Gusathion 20% in papers and issued the same pesticide to Manzoor Ahmad, Field Assistant but physically neither this pesticide was received from Bashir Ahmad nor issued to Manzoor Ahmad. Furthermore the appellant with the connivance of Manzoor Ahmad, Field Assistant was responsible for adulteration of one Drum of Gusathion with Kerosine Oil and water as a result of which 178 liters of Gusathion 20% E. C. became ineffective and Government sustained loss of Rs.7,723.97. This allegation has been fully supported by Manzoor Ahmad himself who stated that it was done under the direction and presence of the appellant. When confronted with this situation the appellant offered an Oath to Manzoor Ahmad in a mosque who accepted the said offer and took Oath in the presence of Mr. Khuda Dad Assistant Plant Protection Officer and himself. Once the appellant made an offer and the same was accepted and the process was carried, he would naturally be liable to make good the loss. The conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer is based on cogent evidence and he has rightly held Assalat Ali, Field Assistant, Manzoor Ahmad, Field Assistant also responsible for their foul play.

8. In these circumstances, we do not find any justification to interfere with the conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer as well as the ultimate decision made by the learned Secretary Agriculture on his appeal, and proceed to dismiss the appeal as being without any merit. There will be no order as to costs.

A. E

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.