The original service record of the case has been perused with the help of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was retired from service by order of Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad, under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 after completing 25 years qualifying service. This order was passed on 26th November, 1979. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that as inquiry was pending against him and that pending the final outcome of the inquiry he could not be retired under section 12 (ii) of the said Act. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Sahibzada Fariduddin v. Province of Punjab and Abdul Qadir v. Government of West Pakistan and Rule 3.28 of Civil Services Rules, Punjab, to contend that as the inquiry was pending against the petitioner at the time the order of retirement was passed he was retired by way of punishment for inefficiency or lack of integrity and that it was not an order without stigma in terms of' section 12 (II) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. It cannot, therefore, be argued on behalf of the respondent that the order of compulsory retirement in this case was not passed as a disciplinary measure. In this view of the matter I hold that the retirement of the petitioner during the pendency of departmental inquiry against him for inefficiency and misconduct was a retirement as disciplinary measure and that this could not be done without a show-cause notice specially when he was exonerated a day earlier.
2. This legal and factual position is not controverted by the learned Additional Advocate-General.
3. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is declared to be illegal and without lawful authority.
4. This order, however, would not preclude the competent authority to pass fresh order in accordance with law in respect of the petitioner if so advised.1 2