HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J. - Facts leading to this writ petition are that the petitioner while serving in the Irrigation Department was removed from service on 8.11.2001, aggrieved by the said order he preferred appeal before the Chief Secretary/appellate authority, which was accepted and he was reinstated, however, the intervening period from the date of removal from service to the date of reinstatement was treated as leave of kind due.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to the age of superannuation the petitioner stood retired on 30.4.2002 but unfortunately he is served with a show- cause notice dated May, 2007 under Rule 1.8 of the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules calling upon him to show cause as to why his pension be not withdrawn or withheld keeping aside that he is already drawing the same without any interruption. Further submits that according to Rule 1.8 of the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules the Government is authorized to proceed against the petitioner under the said Rules within one year of the date of retirement, whereas the petitioner was retired from service in the year 2002 and the impugned show-cause notice is served after a period of i.e years, which otherwise is a nullity in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed on this short ground.
3. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Advocate-General, has supported the impugned show- cause notice and submits that despite superannuation of the year 2002 the petitioner could have been proceeded against under Rule 1.8 of the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. It is well-settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in different cases that "if law requires to do a thing in a particular manner, it must be done in that mariner only and not otherwise", the present case revolves around this proposition and we have to advert to Rule 1.8 of the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules, which is as follows:- "1.8 (a) Good conduct is an implied condition of every kind of pension. Government may withhold or withdraw a pension or any part of it if the pensioner be convicted of serious crime or be found to have been guilty of grave misconduct either during or after the completion of his service, provided that before any order to this effect is issued, (the pension sanctioning authority shall give full opportunity to the pensioner to vindicate his position).
(b) Government reserves to themselves the right of recovery from the pension of Government pensioner on account of losses found in judicial or departmental proceedings to have been caused to Government by the negligence, or fraud of such Government pensioner during his service, provided that such departmental proceedings shall not be instituted after more than a year from the date of retirement of the Government pensioner."
6. The plain reading of the Rule ibid clearly conveys a message that any retired employee can be proceeded against under the Pension Rules but within one year of his retirement and not later than that, In the present case, admittedly the petitioner attained the age of superannuation in the year 2002 and the impugned show- cause' notice is dated May, 2007, which on the face of it, is violative of the Rule 1.8 of the Pension Rules, 1963 and this is a sufficient ground for quash ment of the impugned show- cause notice. This very situation was taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and it was confirmed that departmental proceedings would not be initiated after passing one year of retirement against a civil servant. If some reference is required, reliance can be placed on Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh and another v. Umar-ud-Din (2007 PLC (CS) 662) and a case titled as Rana Muhammad Ali v. Food Department (CA-70 of 2006) decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan on 10.5.2007.
7. In addition to this, reliance can be placed on the cases of Muhammad Masood Joya v.
Government of Punjab and others (2000 PLC (CS) 864) and Secretary. Education (Schools), Government of the Punjab, Lahore v. Muhammad Akhtar Ex Headmaster (2006 SCMR 600).
Following the law supra, the impugned show-cause notice of May, 2007 is declared illegal and the petitioner is held entitled for the pension without any deduction.
This writ petition is allowed in the above terms.