' YAHYA AFRIDI, J.--- Roshandani and others, the present petitioners, seek the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court praying that: "the impugned dismissal order No,2628 ENQ-3420 dated 25-6-2003 may be declared as illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect and that the respondents be directed to release all the pensionary benefits with all other due benefits from 21-3-2003."
2. The grievance of the petitioners in essence is that late Saranjam Khan, the husband of petitioner No,1 and father of petitioners Nos.2 to 12, joined service in WAPDA as LS Grade-II on 21-7-1962; that he was promoted as LS Grade-1 on 20-10-1963 and as SDO on 16-3-1993; that he got retirement on reaching the age of superannuation on 21-3-2003; that his pension papers were submitted through XEN Regional Training Centre, PESCO Charsada, vide letter dated 31-3-2003; that the pension papers were returned, vide letter dated 26-4-2003 with the remarks that the deceased Saranjam Khan was not entitled to any service benefits/ pension/gratuity until the clearance of outstanding amount adjudged in a departmental enquiry; that finally after three months of the date of retirement, he was dismissed from service on 25-6-2003; that late Saranjam Khan had approached the Federal Service Tribunal through three different appeals against the impugned orders, which were abated in the light of the judgment dated 27-6-2006 rendered by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals Nos.792 to 816 of 2005 and that when the petitioners did not get any response from the authorities, they filed the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that where under Rule 7 sub- Rule IV Note 2 of the WAPDA Pension Rules of 1977 and Rule 54-A of the Fundamental Rules of Civil Servants, all the inquires pending against a civil servant stand abated on the retirement on the basis of superannuation, the deceased Saranjam Khan; ex-employee could not be dismissed from service after retirement and that the acts of withholding of pensionary and all other financial benefits on the part of the respondents are liable to be declared null and void.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents apart from the preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present matter on merits, contended that neither late Saranjam Khan died during the service before the completion of the inquiry disciplinary proceedings against him nor he attained the age of superannuation during the inquiry proceedings into his conduct, he was not entitled to retirement with full pensionary benefits.
5. The valuable arguments of the learned counsel for the parties heard and the available record of the case thoroughly considered.
6. As far as the preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of this Court to grant any relief to the present petitioners on the ground that no direction could be rendered to PESCO, which was a Company, this Court is not in consonance with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. The record reveals that late Saranjam Khan was employed in WAPDA and in fact was proceeded against under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees E&D Rules, 1978 and the respondents did not place on record any order whereby late Saranjam Khan was absorbed as a regular employee in PESCO and had to be deal with accordingly. In fact, the penalty awarded to him, vide order dated 18-3-2003 clearly reflected that he was proceeded against as an employee of WAPDA under its disciplinary rules. The said order was in terms that:-
(I) Mr. Saranjam Khan the then SDO FATA Construction Sub Division Bannu now Jr. Instructor RTC Charsadda was served with explanation letter No,3760 dated 20-10-2001.
(2) Mr. Saranjam Khan Jr. Instructor has furnished his defence reply.
(3) Mr. Saranjam Khan Jr. Instructor was afforded the opportunity of personal hearing on 12-8- 2002.
(4) Mr. Saranjam Khan, Jr. Instructor was served with formal show-cause notice No,3587 dated 31-8-2002.
(5) Mr. Saranjam Khan, Jr. Instructor has furnished his defence reply to the formal show-cause notice.
(6) Mr. Saranjam Khan, Jr. Instructor was heard in person on 4-3-2003.
'ORDER 'In exercise of the Powers conferred under Pakistan WAPDA Employees E&D Rules, 1978 and in consideration of the defence replies of Officer and conclusive facts on records, the undersigned in the capacity as "Competent Authority" has decided to impose the penalty of reduction in time scale by two steps for two years along with proportionate recovery of Rs,322, 960 (Three lacs Twenty two thousand nine hundred and sixty) upon Mr. Saranjam Khan, then SDO Constructions/ Division Bannu now Jr. Instructor RTC Charsadda."
' In view of the above admitted facts, the respondents cannot shy away from their obligations to proceed in accordance with law. Accordingly, this constitutional Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition, according to the available record, as late Saranjam B Khan was an employee of WAPDA and not of PESCO.
7. Now moving on to the merits of the case, it is noted that late Saranjam Khan retired from service of WAPDA on reaching the age of superannuation on 21-3-2003 and later he was dismissed from service on 25-6-2003. This dismissal order after late Saranjam Khan had retired from service blatantly against all norm of justice and the clear provision provided under Rule 54-A of the Fundamental Rules. The said Rule as introduced, vide S.R.O.1143(I)/80 dated 10-11-1980, reads as under:--- "54-A. If a Government servant, who has been suspended pending inquiry into his conduct attains the age of superannuation before the completion of inquiry, the disciplinary proceedings against him shall abate and such government servant shall retire with full pensionary benefits and the period of suspension shall be treated as period spend on duty."
' In view of the above all pending inquiries against an officer abates on retirement of the said Officer. This principle has been repeatedly re-affirmed by the superior Courts of our jurisdiction in Noor Ahmad Shah's case (2003 PLC (C.S.) 1400), Muhammad Anwar Bajwa's case (2001 PLC (C.S.)
336) and finally by the apex Court in Muhammad Zaheer Khan's case (2010 SCMR 1554), wherein the apex Court finally held that:- "From the plain reading of the above Rule it becomes abundantly clear that what to talk of sending the case back to the department, even the pending disciplinary proceedings against an officer abate if the latter attains the age of superannuation. The Rule entitles such officer to retire with full pensionary benefits and period of suspension is bound to be treated as period spent on duty. In the circumstances, the question of now sending the matter back to the department for holding de novo inquiry stands out of question. It may be stated at this juncture that the appellant has stated at the Bar that he is not interested in claiming any back benefits and that he is only interested in getting the stigma removed. ..................................................................................
"The fundamental principle laid down in FR 54-A duly supported by the aforementioned cases decided by this Court leads us to the only un-escapable conclusion that the case of the present appellant cannot be remanded back to the authority for holding de novo proceedings, after eleven years of his superannuation."
8. Now, when we review the available record in view of the above 'dicta' of the apex Court, it is noted that at the time of late Saranjam Khan's retirement on 20-3-2003 there was only one inquiry which had been concluded, which had culminated in order dated 18-3-2003, imposing the penalty of reduction in time scale by two steps for two years along with proportionate recovery of Rs,322,960. Thus, the respondents cannot go beyond the said order and impose any further liability upon the legal heirs of late Saranjam Khan. Accordingly, the respondents are to pay the legal heirs of late Saranjam Khan all pensionary benefits under the enabling rules on the matter, after deducting the penalty awarded to late Saranjam Khan, vide order dated 18-3-2003.