Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

2004 P L C (C

2004 P L C (C.S.) 267

[Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Punjab]

Before Justice Maulvi Anwarul Haq, Chairman, Nasim Sikandar and Muhammad Sayeed Akhtar, Members

MUHAMMAD MASUD UMAR KHAN

Versus

THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE and another

Service Appeal No.96 of 2001, heard on 25th July, 2003.

Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunals Act (XII of 1991)---

----S.5---Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974), S.12---Compulsory retirement---Civil servant serving as Additional District and Sessions Judge, was compulsorily retired from service after issuing him show cause-notice on allegation of adverse remarks in some of his A.C.Rs-- Remarks in certain A.C.Rs of civil servant were not treated as adverse, but were treated as advisory---Civil servant, during the period of service in which alleged adverse remarks were given against him, was promoted as Senior Civil Judge and then as Additional District and Sessions Judge which would mean that said report was not found to be an impediment in the way of promotion of civil servant---With regard to observations made against civil servant by Appellate Court concerning bail cancellation applications it had been confirmed by Authority on a representation of civil servant that same were also treated as advisory in nature and not adverse--Services of civil servant, in circumstances, could not be dispensed with in terms of S.12 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974--Order of compulsory retirement of civil servant was set aside, in circumstances.

Principal, Government Girls College, Thana Malakand Agency (now at Saidu Sharif, Swat) v. Mrs. Bilquis Begum 2003 PLC (C.S.) 187 ref.

Saeed Ansari for Appellant.

Malik Muhammad Azam Rasool for Respondent No. 1.

Nayyar Iqbal Ghauri for Respondent No.2,

Date of hearing: 25th July, 2003.

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ (CHAIRMAN).---The appellant while serving as an Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, was served with a notice. calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be retired from service in terms of section 12 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. He filed a reply which failed to satisfy this Court and consequently he was retired from service vide order dated 30-6-2001 under the said provision of law.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the retirement could not have been ordered on the basis of the contents of the said show-cause notice. According to him, the several adverse reports were later on not treated as such and despite the alleged adverse reports, his client was promoted as a Senior Civil Judge and then as Additional District and Sessions Judge. Cites Principal, Government Girls College, Thana Malakand Agency (now at Saidu Sharif, Swat) v. Mrs. Bilquis Begum (2003 PLC (C.S.) 187). Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argues that sufficient material was available to order the retirement of the appellant in public interest.

3. We have gone through the available records. Now according to the show-cause notice, the appellant was confronted with the following:----

(i) The scrutiny of his service record reveals that he had been earning bad reports, touching integrity, etc., in the ACRs for the period from 12-9-1989 to 31-12-1989, 1-1-1990 to 7-7-1990, 8-7-1990 to 31-12-1990, 1-1-1991 to 8-4-1991, 6-8-1997 to 31-12-1997 and 1998;

(ii) Some observations were made against him by this Court while disposing of Criminal Miscellaneous No.2919-BC of 20.00 vide order dated 12-10-2000 and Criminal Miscellaneous No.3298 BC of 2000 vide order dated 13-10-2000.

4. Now we find that the remarks conveyed for the period 12-9-1989 to 31-12-1989 were treated by this Court as advisory and the decision was conveyed to him vide letter dated 16-1-1996 (Annex-A). So far as adverse remarks for the period. 1-1-1991 to 8-4-1991 are concerned, we find that. as per records available with the learned counsel for the respondent, the report regarding the remaining period of the said year (1991) is not adverse. Similar is the case with the ACRs for the period 6-8-1997 .to 31-12-1997. It has. been asserted that during this period as well the appellant remained on earned leave for one month and then he was on some training for two weeks meaning thereby the period is less than three months. Regarding the remaining period of the said year (1997) the report is stated by the. learned counsel for-the respondent not to be adverse. This leaves the report for the period 1-1-1990 to 31-12-1990. We find that the appellant was promoted as a Senior Civil Judge in March, 1996 while he was promoted as Additional District and Session Judges in June. 1997. This would mean that the said report was found to be an impediment in the way of the appellant to be promoted. We do assume that his dossier must have been scrutinized while considering his case for promotion. This does bring his case within the ambit of the said judgment to the case of Principal, Government Girls College, Thana Malakand Agency (now at Saidu Sharif, Swat).

5. Now so far as the report for 1998 is concerned, we are told by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent is unable to controvert that a representation against the said remarks has been filed and is pending.

5-A. So far as the observations in the said orders passed by this Court in the said bail cancellation applications, the learned counsel for the respondent confirms with reference to record that on a representation bf the appellant, the same were treated as advisory in nature and not adverse.

6. Having thus examined the records, we do find that the services of the appellant could not be dispensed with in terms of section 12 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. This service appeal accordingly is allowed and the impugned order dated 30-6-2001 terminating the services of the appellant under section 12 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, is set aside. Upon our query we are told that during the interregnum the appellant has been practicing at the bar. This being so, the appellant will not be entitled to receive any financial benefit for the intervening period during which he remained out of service. However, he will be deemed to have remained continuously in service as also other resultant consequences like seniority, etc.

H.B.T./M-2353/L Appeal allowed.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from SERVICE-TRIBUNAL-PUNJAB
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant