ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J.--- Ehsan-ul-Haq petitioner retired as Sub-Engineer, Bahawalpur Canal Division attaining the age of superannuation on 2-10-1990. On 14-6-2001 after 11 years of his retirement Executive Engineer, Ahmadpur Canal Division Ahmadpur East/respondent No,1 issued order No,2301/111-A-13/93-94 to the District Accounts Officer, Bahawalpur to make recovery of Rs,16000 from the petitioner's pension. Being aggrieved of this action of the respondent the petitioner has impugned the said order dated 14-6-2001 by invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court on the grounds that according to departmental certificates issued at the time of his retirement no demand or inquiry was pending against him during the whole service in the Irrigation Department; that the petitioner is not responsible for any unlawful recovery; that the impugned order for recovery is violative to the Punjab Civil Servants Pension Rules, 1963.
2. The respondent while filing parawise comments has contended that the petitioner did not avail the alternate remedy before the appropriate forum. He further contended that an inquiry into the matter was duly conducted pursuant to the audit report in the year 1989-90 and assessed the loss of Rs,1,86,000 for the stolen trees; that the petitioner and other Sub-Engineers were found guilty and thus the petitioner was ordered to deposit Rs,16000 as a loss to the government.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Section 2(1)(b) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 defines 'civil servant' as under:--- "2(b) 'civil servant' means a person who is a member of a civil service of the Province or who holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Province, but does not include:---
(i) a person who is on deputation to the Province from the Federation or any other Province or authority;
(ii) a person who is employed on contract, or on work-charged basis, or who is paid from contingencies; or
(iii) a person who is a 'worker' or 'workman' as defined in the Factories Act, 1934 (XV of 1934) or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (VIII of 1923)."
5. The above noted definition makes it crystal clear that a person who has retired from service does not fall within the ambit of expression of "civil servant". Therefore, the petitioner has no alternate remedy against the impugned order except to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court in terms of article 199 of the Constitution.
6. At this juncture for convenience of reference I would like to reproduce the provision of rules 1.8 (a) and (b) of the Punjab Civil Servants Pension Rules, 1963, which reads below:--- "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 procedure regarding imposition of the penalty of removal from service shall be followed.
(b) Government reserve to themselves the right of recovery from the pension of a 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."
7. To fortify his good conduct in the light of the above referred rule 1.8 of the Pension Rules the petitioner has placed on record two certificates (Annexures-A and A/1) issued by respondent No,1 at the time of his retirement, which reads as under:- "ANNEXURE-A CONSOLIDATED NOC/NEC.
Certified that there is nothing short/no inquiry against Sh. Ehsan-ul-Haq Sub-Engineer, (Retired) in whole of the Irrigation Department.
Sd/- Executive Engineer, Bahawalpur Canal Division, Bahawalpur 6-10-1990 Sd- Superintending Engineer, Bahawalpur Canal Circle, Bahawalpur 8-10-1990 Sd/-Senior Most Staff Officer, Irrigation Bahawalpur Zone.
8-10-1990 ANNEXURE-A/1 ' From, ' The Executive Engineer, ' Ahmadpur Canal Division, ' Ahmadpur East.
' To ' The Executive Engineer, Bahawalpur Canal Division, Bahawalpur.
' No,4479 dated 24.9.1990 ' Subject: NO DEMAND NO ENQU IRY AGAINST SH: EHSAN-ULHAQ SUB ENGINEER.
Please find enclosed No Demand Certificate in the favour of above named sub-Engineer, for further necessary action.
Sd/-Executive Engineer, Ahmadpur Canal Division, Ahmadpur East. 14-9-90"
8. Bare perusal of both the certificates transpires that the petitioner was given clean chit at the time of his retirement as regards his good conduct or pendency of any inquiry. There is nothing on the record from the respondent side to show that the petitioner was ever served with any show cause notice or any charge sheet relating to any departmental proceedings during his service or after his superannuation. It is disclosed by the respondents in the comments that the alleged inquiry report was submitted by Executive Engineer Khanpur on 26-5-2001 i.e, after eleven years of his retirement. I am afraid no such inquiry could be conducted against the petitioner after one year of his superannuation as manifested in proviso of rule 1.8 (b) of the Pension Rules. Rather all disciplinary proceedings against him if any stand abated on superannuation. Reliance be made upon Bilquis Nargis v. Secretary to Government of Punjab, Education Department (1983 PLC (C.S.)
1141). An inquiry conducted at the back of a retired government servant without issuance of any charge sheet before his superannuation cannot be termed as a valid departmental proceedings.
Therefore the impugned inquiry (departmental proceedings) held against the petitioner after eleven years of his retirement is without lawful authority and not sustainable in the eye of law.
9. As a sequel to the above, this writ petition is accepted and the impugned letter No, 2301/111-A- 13/93-94 dated 14-6-2001 issued by respondent No,1 for recovery of Rs,16000 from the petitioner's pension is declared illegal, violative to the Pension Rules and is set aside leaving the parties to bear their own costs.