Moazzam Hayat, Member.--The Federal Board of Revenue issued a policy letter dated 12.09.2002 to establish an Inland Revenue Service, comprising officers from Customs and Excise Group and Income Tax Group. The officers were required to give their options for joining the new service. The option, once exercised, could not be revoked. The appellant, Aftab Anwar Baloch, had joined the service on 05.04.1980 after competing CSS Examination. He was finally promoted to BS-21 in the Customs Group on 23.01.2010. He had opted to join the new service. However, he made a representation for withdrawal of his option on 12.07.2010. It was rejected on 26.07.2010, conveyed to him on 14.09.2010 (as he was on leave up to 13.09.2010), compelling him to file the present appeal.
His request is that the option be deemed to have been withdrawn and he be allowed to remain in Customs Group with his seniority.
2. The respondents, through Mr. Muhammad Shabbir Bhutta, Advocate have, vehemently resisted the appeal. It is submitted by them that under the policy letter dated 12.09.2009, option once exercised could not be revoked. Reliance has been placed on 2004 SCMR 1426 and 1999 SCMR 650.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
4. The latest law on the issue relating to revocation of option is contained in 2005 SCMR 1997 and 2007 TD (Service) 398. In the former authority the Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court comprised of My Lord Mr. Justice Rana Bagwan Das and My Lord Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal. A civil servant had withdrawn his resignation. It was held by the apex Court that option to retire could be revoked before its acceptance. We shall proceed to decide the present appeal in the light of the said principle of law that option can be withdrawn before it is acted upon.
5. Mr. Abdul Rahim Bhatti, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had withdrawn his option to join Inland Revenue Service before the establishment of that service. On the other hand Mr. Shabbir Bhutta, learned counsel for the respondents, has argued that the representation had been made by the appellant for withdrawal of his option after it had been made acted upon, since in the meantime Inland Revenue Service had been created. As stated above the appellant was promoted to BS-21 on 23.01.2010. He was promoted in the Customs Group and not in Inland Revenue Service. The seniority list of officers of Customs Group, in which the name of the appellant was mentioned, was issued on 15.11.2010. The promotion of the appellant in the Customs Group and issuance of seniority list of officers of that Group, containing the name of the appellant, abundantly proved that when the appellant was promoted to BS-21 the process of establishment. of Inland Revenue Service had not been completed. Thus he had an absolute right to revoke his option and to continue in Customs service.
6. The respondents have placed a document on record to prove that the process of creation of Inland Revenue Service had been completed before the appellant had withdrawn his option. The document is a Fax copy of seniority list of the officers of the Inland Revenue Service. It contains the name of the appellant. We are afraid, this document cannot be relied upon in view of entries made therein that it was only for internal use, not for external use and could not be produced in a Court of law. This Tribunal has been established under Article, 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It is thus a Court of law. The respondents should not have placed this document before us.
We tend to ignore it for the reasons given therein. On its basis we shall not hold that process of completion of Inland Revenue Service had been completed before the appellant had revoked his option to join it.
7. Para-3 and para-6 of the policy letter/O.M. dated 12.09.2010 clearly indicate that the scheme of new service was in the offing and the exercise in that regard was still under process. The respondents were, therefore, required to produce reliable and authentic evidence to establish its case that Inland Revenue Service had already come into being when the appellant had made representation for withdrawal of his option. In the said O.M. it was definitely stated that the option could be withdrawn up to 28.09.2009. But this was the date the FBR had given. The FBR had no authority to go against the well established law that option could be withdrawn before it was acted upon.
8. In 2010 PLC (CS) 478, the Hon'ble Lahore High Court had held that exercise for option was not that sacrosanct that it could not be withdrawn if it was found detrimental to the interest of civil servant.
The case before the High Court was of the same service i,e, Internal Revenue Service. We give due respect to the findings of the High Court and hold that the appellant had a right to withdraw his option since it had not been acted upon and he had found it to be detrimental to his service interest.
9. In the circumstances we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 26.7.2010. The appellant shall remain in Customs Service and shall count his seniority from the date he was promoted to BS-21 in Customs Service.
10. No order as to costs.
11. Parties be informed.