Briefly the facts of the case are that petitioner while performing duties as Director in the Department of Agriculture, Government of Punjab and posted as Principal, Agriculture Training Institute, Rahim Yar Khan, retired from service w.e.f. 14.05.2006 and then after his retirement, on 06.10.2007 a Show Cause Notice under Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 (hereinafter to be called as PEEDA) on the charges of inefficiency, misconduct and corruption, was issued against him. The petitioner submitted reply to the Show Cause Notice and filed the instant writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a retired civil servant and at the time of retirement clearance certificate was issued by the department, as such, no proceedings under PEEDA could be initiated against him. Further submits that PEEDA was promulgated on 17.10.2006, whereas, the petitioner retired from service on 14.05.2006, hence, the provisions of PEEDA cannot be enforced retrospectively. Lastly, argued that impugned action has been taken against the petitioner due to malafide, ulterior motives and biased attitude of the authority.
3. The learned Law Officer submits that the authority is competent to proceed against the petitioner under PEEDA and after retirement within a period of one year, the authority could initiate inquiry against the retired employee, hence, proceedings against the petitioner are within the parameters of law, as the Show Cause Notice was issued before the expiry of one year from the date of retirement of the petitioner.
4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and perused the record.
5. The PEEDA was promulgated to provide good governance to improve efficiency, discipline and accountability of employees in government and corporation service and matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto. As it is duty of the government servants to work efficiently and perform functions assigned to them, in discharge of duties. Their conduct during service should not be prejudicial to good order or service discipline and should not be involved dishonestly or fraudulently in misappropriation of Funds or indulged in embezzlement of government property or resources, etc.
6. The moot point in this case are whether after retirement of a civil servant, disciplinary proceedings could be initiated and whether civil servant could be proceeded under PEEDA when the charges levelled against him related to the period when PEEDA has not been promulgated.
7. The proposition that if the charge against an employee has surfaced after the promulgation of PEEDA, for the period when the said Act was not in field whether same would be applicable or previous law will apply, the answer to this question is provided in Section 1(4)(iii) of PEEDA. For ready reference, said section is reproduced hereunder:-
1. Short title, extent, commencement and application.--(1) This Act may be called the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006.
(2).....................................................
(3).....................................................
(4) It shall apply to
(i) employees in government service,
(ii) employees in corporation service; and
(iii) retired employees of government and corporation service; provided that proceedings under this Act are initiated against them during their service or within one year of their retirement."
The above reproduced section clearly indicates that it will apply to the employees in government and corporation service and further this Act would cover whole of their service period even before the promulgation of PEEDA and after the enforcement of PEEDA, either on the basis of any information or knowledge of the competent authority, he forms an opinion that sufficient grounds for initiating proceedings under PEEDA are available, the Authority can proceed against an employee on the allegations of inefficiency, or seizure of efficiency for any reason, misconduct, corruption, or reasonably considered to be corrupt, engaged or reasonably believed to be engaged in subversive activities, under PEEDA even if period of charge/allegations is before the enforcement of PEEDA.
8. Further, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner has no force in the light of Section 1(4)(iii) of PEEDA and rule 1.8(b) of West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963, which provisions clearly provide that proceedings against retired employees could be initiated during service or within a period of one year of his retirement. Insertion of Section 1(4)(iii) in PEEDA connotes that legislative body was mindful of the fact that this Act could apply retrospectively to all employees who have even retired before promulgation of this Act, but not after the expiry of one year of retirement. However, the penalty provided for a retired employee under section 4(c) of PEEDA is different as compared to the penalties provided for serving employees.
9. There is repeal clause in Section 26 of PEEDA and by this repeal clause, the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 was repealed. Sub-section (2) of Section 26 of PEEDA provide that any proceedings which have been initiated under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and pending immediately before the commencement of this Act against an employee under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and rules made thereunder, or any other law or rules shall continue under that law and rules, as provided in the relevant law.
10. Bare reading of Section 1(4) and Section 26(2) of PEEDA clarify that all serving civil employees and retired civil servants (within a period of one year of their retirement), could be proceeded under PEEDA irrespective of the period of charge/allegations and Section 26(2) of the Act is its exception, which covers those cases which are being already proceeded under the relevant law before the promulgation of PEEDA.
11. For what has been discussed above, the issuance of Show Cause Notice against the petitioner is perfectly in accordance with law and no illegality has been found therein. This writ petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.