' CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.---The brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that respondent No,2 compulsory retired the petitioner from service vide order dated 31-1-2002 under the provisions of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The petitioner being aggrieved preferred an appeal before the higher authority (Director General, FDA) of respondent No,2, which was dismissed as time-barred vide order dated 14-4-2002. The petitioner being aggrieved challenging the aforesaid order of respondent No,1 filed appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore which was accepted vide judgment dated 10-9-2002 in the following terms:-- "I, therefore, set aside the impugned order dated 31-1-2002 and 14-4-2002, direct the reinstatement of the appellant in service with immediate effect. The period between compulsory retirement and reinstatement to be treated as leave of the kind due. However, the penalty is converted into stoppage of increment for two years for using the parliamentary language in reply to the show- cause notice."
' The respondents failed to implement the judgment of Service Tribunal. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this Constitutional petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that respondents were directed by the Service Tribunal to reinstate the petitioner in service with immediate effect vide judgment dated 10-9-2002, but the respondents did not allow the petitioner to join the service of respondents in terms of aforesaid judgment of Service Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondents to allow him to join the service in terms of judgment of Service Tribunal on 28-9-2002 and also he had sent written application through U.M.S. On 30-9-2002. Thereafter the petitioner has sent reminder to the respondents on 22-9-2003 for the said purpose but in vain. The petitioner being aggrieved by inaction of the respondents filed writ petition before this Court on 30-6-2003.
He further submits that after receiving the notice from the Court, the respondents have reinstated the petitioner in service on 11-10-2003 after considering delay of one year in spite of the fact that the petitioner has submitted an application to the respondents to join the service of the respondents in terms of aforesaid judgment of Service Tribunal. He further submits that the respondents have to pay salaries to the petitioner from date of submission of application to the respondents from 28-9-2002 till 26-5-2003, wherein the respondents directed the petitioner to appear personally and submit his joining report in terms of judgment of Service Tribunal.
3. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that the petitioner has submitted an application for his retirement before respondent No,2 on 29-1-2002, which was allowed. Subsequently the petitioner filed appeal before respondent No,1, which was rejected as time-barred." He further submits that the respondents are only liable to pay salaries to the petitioner for the period, which he had performed duties of the respondents. Instead of submission of his joining report personally, he sent an application to the respondents on 22-5-2003 wherein, the petitioner was directed to appear personally and join service of the respondents in terms of judgment of Service Tribunal vide letter dated 26-5-2003. The petitioner submitted his joining report and respondents allowed the same vide order dated 11-10-2003, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief from this Court, as the respondents have implemented the judgment of Service Tribunal in letter and sprit.
4. The learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal submits that the respondents failed to controvert the stand taken by the petitioner in reply of paragraph No,4, therefore, he respondents are duty bound to release the salaries of the petitioner from the date of joining report submitted by the petitioner to the respondents, in terms of judgment of Service Tribunal on 28-9-2002 till reply submitted by the respondents vide letter dated 26-9-2003. He further submits that this Court has ample jurisdiction to give direction to the respondents to implement the judgment of Service Tribunal. In support of his contention, he relied upon S. Inamul Haq v. Secretary Establishment Division" (1982 Law Notes Lah. 437).
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
6. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the basic facts in chronological orders to resolve the controversy between the parties:--
(i) The petitioner was retired from service by the Director Administration, FDA vide order dated 31-1- 2002.
(ii) The petitioner filed departmental appeal, which was dismissed as time-barred on 14-4-2002.
(iii) The petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal before the Service Tribunal against the aforesaid order of the respondents, which was accepted vide judgment dated 10-9-2002 by setting aside the order of the respondents and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with immediate effect.
(iv) The petitioner submitted written application to the Director General, FDA on 28-9-2002 to allow him to join the service of the respondents in terms of judgment of Service Tribunal.
(v) The petitioner also sent similar request through U.M.S. Dated 30-9-2002.
(vi) The petitioner also submitted reminder on 22-5-2003 to the Director-General, FDA with request to allow him to join the service in terms of judgment of Service Tribunal.
(vii) The respondents intimated the petitioner vide., letter dated 26-5-2003 to appear personally for the purpose to join the service in terms of judgment of Service Tribunal.
(viii) The petitioner was allowed to join the service of the respondents on 11-10-2003.
(ix) The petitioner has taken the following stand in paragraph No,4 of the petition:-- "That for all practical purposes the petitioner was reinstated in service with immediate effect and, therefore, had to be taken in service by the respondents. The petitioner approached respondent No,1 vide joining report dated 28-9-2002 and requested that he be allowed to join service. A copy of the joining report along with postal receipt is enclosed as Annex. "B". However, for reasons best known to the respondents, the petitioner's joining report was not accepted and he was told off."
' Respondents have taken following stand in reply of paragraph No,4:-- "Incorrect. He had sent his joining report by post (photocopy attached), instead of submitting the same in person to the competent authority. He was directed, in response to the above-mentioned joining report, to submit his joining in person but he failed to comply with the orders (copy attached). Even he did not physically join his duties to date."
7. In case, the aforesaid facts are put in juxta-position, then it is crystal clear that the petitioner has sent application to the respondents initially on 28-9-2002 and also through U.M.S. Dated 30-9-2002 and thereafter sent reminder on 22-5-2003. The respondents have not denied these documents in reply of paragraph No,4 this fact being the case in the area that the petitioner is being penalized by inaction of the respondents. It is the duty and obligation of the respondents to direct the petitioner immediately after receiving the application of the petitioner to appear personally for the purpose to join service in terms of judgment of Service Tribunal. It is settled principle of law that nobody should be penalized by inaction of the public functionaries, as per principle laid down by this Court in Ahmed Latif Qureshi's case (PLD 1994 Lahore 3), it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has filed this Constitutional petition before this Court on 30-6-2003, which was fixed before this Court on 1-7- 2003, wherein respondents were directed to file report and parawise comments. The respondents reinstated the petitioner on 11-10-2003, meaning thereby, after filing of the writ petition by the petitioner, the respondents vide letter dated 26-5-2003, intimated the petitioner to appear personally, therefore, interim period from 28-9-2002 to 26-5-2003 is the result of negligence of the respondents on the basis of which, the petitioner could not join the service, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get salaries of the aforesaid period in terms of judgment of Service Tribunal.
8. In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition is accepted to this extent that the respondents are directed to release the salaries of the petitioner for the period frOm 28-9-2002 to 26-5-2003. It is settled principle of law that it is the right of the petitioner to secure the salaries from the respondents in terms of judgment of Service Tribunal as the petitioner has not performed the duties of the respondents for the said period due to negligence and inaction of the respondents.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid inaction of official/officer of the respondents for which petitioner has been penalized. Director-General, F.D.A. Is directed to constitute a committee to probe into the matter qua inefficiency/negligence of the officials/officers of respondents. In case, the committee finds default on the part of officials/officers for the aforesaid allegations, then the Director-General of F.D.A., is directed to proceed against delinquent officials/officers under E&D Rules and also recover the amount, which would have to pay by the respondents to the petitioner for the said period . He is further directed to look into the matter personally and see what is happening in his department that his subordinates are not acting in accordance with law and the poor citizens/officials are being penalized by their inaction as they are not performing their duties in accordance with mandate of Constitution by virtue of Article 4 of the Constitution it is also settled principle of law that everybody is duty bound to obey the command of Constitution in view of Article 5(2) of the Constitution, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Zahoor Elahi's case (PLD 1975 SC 383). The aforesaid D.G. F.D.A. Is also directed to complete this process within three months. He is also directed to submit his report to the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court within stipulated period.
' With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges.