' A. O. RAZIUR RAHMAN (MEMBER).-The appellant who joined the Central Excise and Land Customs Department as Supervisor on 22nd January, 1944 and was promoted as Inspector on 14th April, 1949 and later as Deputy Superintendent on 17th January, 1976 was retired by an order dated 4th February, 1980, under section 3(11) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, after completion of 25 years of service qualifying for pension and other retirement benefits. He submitted a representation, to the Chairman, Central Board of Revenue against this order of retirement on 15th February, 1980. Not having received any reply to his representation, he filed the present appeal before the Tribunal on 3rd May, 1980. The appeal was admitted on 9th November, 1980 and came up for hearing today.
2. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant documents and papers produced by the parties.
3. It was pleaded on behalf of the respondent:, that the appeal stood abated under Article 13(1) of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, by which the jurisdiction of all Courts and Tribunals, including the Supreme Court, the High Courts and Service Tribunals has been barred in the case of persons in the service of Pakistan retired under the orders of the competent authority after completion of 25 years of service qualifying for pension or other retirement benefits and all proceedings pending in such Courts or Tribunals have been declared to have abated. It was, however, contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order was illegal and ultra vires, as it had been passed, not after he had completed 25 years of service but, after he had put inasmuch as 36 years of service in the Department. He further submitted that in 1975 there was a general review of the cases of officers of his cadre in the Department, as a result of which as many as 42 officers of the rank of Inspector and Deputy Superintendent in the Lahore and Peshawar Collect orates of the Department were retired on completion of 25 years of service on 31st December, 1974, but the Appellant, whose case was also reviewed, was retained in service. Not only this, he was promoted the next year, 1. e. In 1976, to the rank of Deputy Superintendent. It was argued that once his case had been reviewed after completion of 25 years of service and he had been considered fit for continuance in service, he could not be retired before he reached the age of superannuation, particularly when he had also been promoted after the review of his case in 1975.
It was further pointed out that, only a five days before the order for his retirement was passed, he had been given a good report in the A. C. R. For the year 1979 and so there could be no justification for considering him unsuitable for further retention in service. Another point made by the learned counsel for the appellant was that, on 12th February, 1979. The Central Board of Revenue had issued a circular bearing F. No. 1/2/1979 A C E-1 to all subordinate departments asking them to prepare grade-wise lists of all employees in Grade 1 to 16 who had completed 25 years' service on or before 31st December, 1978 and whose cases had not been previously reviewed. These lists were to be sent for further action by a Committee set up for the purpose by the C. B. R. The impugned order has therefore, been assailed on the ground that it was contrary to the instructions of the C. B. R. In so far as the appellant's case had already been reviewed earlier and was not required to be considered again.
4. We have considered the points raised by the Appellant and come to the conclusion that the Tribunal is not in a position to proceed with this case, since it is barred from entertaining appeals against orders of retirement under section 13 (II) of the Civil Servants Act on any ground whatsoever, if the order has been passed by the competent authority after the completion of 25 years of qualifying service. In other words, the Tribunal can entertain appeals only in those cases where the order of retirement is impugned on the ground that the civil servant had no completed 25 years of qualifying service or that the order had not been passed by the competent authority. It can also look into those cases 'A where the order is impugned on the ground of mala fide.
Whatever the merits of the present case, it has neither been claimed by the Appellant that the order was passed by anybody other than the competent authority, nor that he had not completed 25 years of qualifying service when the said order was passed. No case of mala fide was also made out.
5. As for the plea that his case could not be reviewed twice, the law on the subject is quite clear.
The relevant portion of section 13 on the Civil Servants Act reads as under :- ' A civil servant shall retire from service-
(i) ..........................................
(ii) in any other case, on such date after he has completed twenty-five years of service qualifying for pension or other retirement benefits as the competent authority may in the public interest, direct ; or ' From the wordings of this section, it is clear that civil servant, who has completed 25 years of qualifying service, can be retired under this section at any time after the completion of the said period and before reaching the age of superannuation.
6. The plea that the review of the Appellant's case was carried out in contravention of the instructions of C. B. R. Has a good deal of in it. But it cannot be looked into, in view of the bar on the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
7. In view of the foregoing, we have no option but to hold that this appeal is hit by Article 13 (1) of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981. It is, therefore, disposed of accordingly.