' UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.--- Based on the letter dated 20-11-2001 issued by the Ministry of Defence the petitioner was compulsorily retired from the post of Security Officer, ABF with effect from 10-12-2001.
The said impugned order of compulsory retirement is passed under Rule 12(1)(a) of the Pakistan Army Act Rules, 1954 ("Rules"). That provision in the Rules is reproduced below:--- "The retirement or release of an officer shall be authorized by the Federal Government and notified in the official Gazette. The Federal Government may at any time terminate the services of any officer."
2. The petitioner in person submits that the language of the afore noted Rule does not comprehend compulsory retirement but simple retirement. The word 'compulsory' implies a stigma, which is reflected by a major punishment that is inflicted on a government servant under the Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973. He relies on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Sindh High Court Bar Association and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2009 SC 879.
3. Learned Deputy Attorney-General has explained that the retirement order of the petitioner under Rule 12 of the Rules is pari materia with section 13 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 ("Act"). Under that provision of the Act retirement from service of a government servant after completing 25 years of service along with pension and other retirement benefits may be ordered by a competent authority in the public interest. Such retirement does not comprehend any punishment and carries entitlement to all post-retirement benefits. Relies on Federation of Pakistan and others v.
Muhammad Ashraf and others (2008 SCM R 415) to urge that retirement under section 13 of the Act does not amount to punishment and is therefore not subject to the rule of natural justice and hearing. He defends the impugned order passed in the present case on the foregoing premise.
Heard. It is obvious from the arguments led by the learned DAG and as stated in the parawise comments the compulsory retirement of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 10-12-2001 is not meant to impose a punishment on the petitioner. His service has been dispensed with along with all pensionary benefits. Equally, it is also clear that neither Rule 12(1) of the Rules nor section 13 of the Act contemplate "compulsory retirement" as the mode of retiring an officer from service.
However, that expression has been used in the impugned order. To the mind of this Court,, the use of word "compulsory" carries an adverse connotation, which cannot be incorporated in terms of the applicable legal provisions of Rule 12 ibid nor can be justified in view of the fact that no notice of hearing of the petitioner nor any inquiry into allegations mentioned in the parawise comments has been held. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal and without jurisdiction to the extent of imposing a major punishment on the petitioner without due process under the Army Act, 1952. It is directed that the respondents shall modify, the order of retirement of the petitioner by deleting the word "compulsory" therefrom. However, the effective date of the retirement order shall remain the same but subject to the right of the petitioner to claim compensation for any distress, embarrassm ent or other injury or loss suffered by him on account of the wrongful and callous imposition of a major punishment on him by the impugned order.
4. Petition partly allowed.