' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHA1RMAN).-Malik Muhammad Anwar Khan has filed this appeal on 23rd January, 1980 under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against his retirement order dated 6th January, 1980 whereby he was retired in public interest with effect from the date of issue of the said order under clause (ii) of section '2 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 after the appellant had rendered 25 years service qualifying for pension etc. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order be set saide and he may be re-instated in service with all back benefits.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant who was working as S. I. Was retired from service in public interest by the competent authority vide order dated 6th January, 1980 under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. His representation to the next higher authority was rejected as being without any force.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the District Attorney on behalf of the respondent and have perused the record carefully with their assistance. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken a plea that as the appellant's two years approved service was forfeited permanently, therefore the same may be deducted from the length of service rendered Say him.
The argument in a nutshell is that if the said period is deducted, the length of service would become less than 25 years. We have looked into this legal objection and find that the appellant himself challenged this permanent forfeiture of approved service before this Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 18th September, 1979 accepted his appeal and restored the said forfeiture. While going into the record, we find that the order of the Tribunal was implemented and acted upon vide Order Book No, 675 of 1979 and entry to that effect was made in his Service roll. In view of the above fact on record the plea taken by the appellant loses all its force, therefore it cannot be considered from any angle that his retirement has not been made after completion of 25 years of service. The argument of the learned counsel that the order of the Tribunal was not implemented therefore that forfeiture still remains in field also falls to the ground. In view of the above-stated entry into the record of the appellant's service roll.
' In view of above we do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order and dismiss the appeal accordingly.