' It is mainly argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been visited with the major penalty of removal from service under E&D Rules vide impugned order dated 7-1- 1999 when she had ceased to be a civil servant in consequence of her retirement on superannuation. It is also argued that even on merits also the penalty of removal from service was not sustainable as the charges levelled against the appellant were baseless. The appellant filed an appeal against the impugned order which was not decided by the time present appeal was filed.
Learned counsel has placed his reliance on many reported case laws, particularly 1988 PLC (C.S)
245, 1997 SCMR 347 and 2000 PLC (C.S.) 864 Lah. 244 in that context.
2. Learned District Attorney has stated that enquiry had been instituted against the appellant while she was still in service and it was delayed because of the uncooperative attitude of the appellant. It is also maintained by the learned District Attorney that punishment had been awarded after considering the enquiry report. The learned District Attorney, however, admits that the appellant had ceased to be a civil servant when the order imposing the penalty of removal from service was imposed upon the appellant.
3. I have considered the arguments from the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney. The fact cannot be denied that the appellant was no more a civil servant when the penalty of removal from service was awarded under the impugned orders. The superior Courts have held in many reported cases that in consequence of retirement a civil servant being no more a civil servant, proceedings under E&D Rules shall abate. This being the legal and factual position, impugned orders are set aside to the extent of the appellant and the matter is remanded to the concerned respondent for fresh proceedings against the appellant in terms of rule 1.8 of the IA Pension Rules. accordingly