Raja Saeed Akram Khan, J.-- The above tiled appeal by leave of the Court has been addressed against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 18th April 2015, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent, herein, has been accepted.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of the instant appeal are that the respondent, herein, was serving in District Jail, Rawalakot as Female Warder. On 05.11.2012, she tendered her resignation before the concerned authority.
Thereafter, she filed a representation before the departmental authority, alleging therein, that on 05.11.2011, the Superintendent Jail, Rawalakot called her in office and while extending severe threats ordered her to present resignation. Some of the office bearers also forced her to resign from the post. The staff of the Jail including Superintendent Jail tortured her mentally and succeeded to get the resignation from the respondent. The departmental authority appointed Superintendent District Jail, Bagh as Inquiry Officer to verify the fact. After getting the inquiry report, the concerned departmental authority vide order dated 20.12.2012, accepted the resignation of the respondent. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal.
The learned Service Tribunal after necessary proceedings while accepting the appeal set aside the recommendations made in the inquiry report along with the order dated 20.12.2012. Hence, this appeal by leave of the Court.
3. Ch. Shoukat Aziz, the learned Addl. Advocate-General argued that the impugned judgment is inconsistent with the principle of law as the learned Service Tribunal failed to appreciate the record in its true perspective. He further contended that immediately after induction into service, it was found that the respondent is involved in the illegal activities as she illegally facilitated the prisoners. The Superintendent Jail himself inquired the matter and issued warning to her time and again, but she continued her illegal activities. Whereupon, the concerned authority take action against her, however, to save herself from criminal proceedings, she tendered her resignation at her own free will, but later on she turn around and filed representation before the Inspector General of Police that the resignation has not been presented voluntarily rather the same was obtained by force. He added that the Service Tribunal has not taken into account that Female Warder being member of disciplined force cannot be allowed to involve in the illegal activities. He added that the officials, involved in such like activities, cannot be allowed to remain in service. He contended that the Service Tribunal has also not appreciated the fact that no coercion was put upon the respondent for resignation rather she tendered the same just to avoid the criminal proceedings. He strongly argued that the concerned authority conducted thorough inquiry and found that the respondent voluntarily presented her resignation, moreover, the serious allegations levelled against her were also proved. Thus, she has rightly been terminated from service. He added that the termination order has validly been issued by the competent authority which was not open for interference by the Service Tribunal, but the learned Service Tribunal without any justification set aside the same.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Qureshi, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposed the arguments advanced by the learned Addl. Advocate-General. He submitted that the impugned judgment is perfect and legal which has been passed in accordance with the settled norms of justice.
He contended that nothing is on record which may show that the respondent presented her resignation at her own free-will. He added that on the strength of inquiry, conducted to ascertain the fact; whether respondent presented her resignation voluntarily or not, cannot be made basis for her removal from service. He added that no inquiry regarding the allegations levelled against the respondent was conducted. In this way, the learned Service Tribunal has rightly appreciated the law on the subject and passed the impugned judgment while assigning strong reasons.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record along with the impugned judgment. The perusal of the record reveals that the respondent, herein, was serving as Female Warder in District Jail, Rawalakot. On 15.09.2012, she tendered her resignation from service. Before acceptance of the resignation, she filed representation before the competent authority for withdrawal of the same on the ground that the resignation has not been given by her voluntarily rather the same was obtained forcibly. It will be useful to reproduce here the relevant portion of the representation filed by the respondent which reads as under:- {{URDU TEXT}} The record reveals that on filing of the representation, the inquiry was conducted to ascertain the fact; whether the respondent presented her resignation voluntarily or not. It may be observed here that when the respondent moved application/representation for withdrawal of the resignation before its acceptance by the competent authority there was no occasion to hold an inquiry as it is settled law that when a civil servant withdraws from the resignation before its acceptance by the competent authority, the resignation should be deemed to have been withdrawn. In this regard, reliance may be placed on a case reported as Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore v. Syed Javed Akbar and another [2007 SCMR 792], wherein, the apex Court of Pakistan has observed as under:- "3. Be that as it may be, learned Service Tribunal had accepted the appeal by respondent No.1 with cogent reasons after application of mind as evident from the following operative part of the impugned judgment:- 'We have given consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. There is no dispute that the resignation tendered on 02.03.1998 was withdrawn on 20.04.1998 while it was accepted on 02.05.1998. To our mind having tendered his resignation it would not have been appropriate for the appellant/judicial officer to perform judicial functions. There is no allegation that he remained absent in fact. The learned counsel for the appellant informs us that after the said event he has been practicing at the bar.
That being so we will allow the service appeal. The appellant shall be reinstated in service without any financial benefit. Also the intervening period from the date of his relinquishing charge and resuming the same shall be treated as kind of the leave due.'
4. It is a settled law that a resignation can be withdrawn or recalled before its acceptance by the competent authority."
Similarly, in another case reported as Ashfaq Ahmed Meer v. Secretary Population Welfare Division, Islamabad and 2 others [1999 PLC (C.S) 738], it has been observed that:- "From the aforesaid provision of rules, it is clear that the resignation tendered by a Government servant before its acceptance could be withdrawn, and to this proposition the learned Standing counsel has no objection if the appeal is accepted."
Under law, it was enjoined upon the departmental authority to accept the application/representation filed by the respondent for withdrawal of the resignation at first and thereafter, if the authority felt it advised that a regular inquiry regarding the allegations leveled against the respondent is required, the same could be conducted.
However, instead of adopting the proper procedure provided under law, the resignation, already withdrawn by the respondent, was accepted by the authority. In such state of affairs, we are of the view that the inquiry proceedings and the order passed by the authority for acceptance of the resignation are inconsistent with law, therefore, the Service Tribunal was justified to set aside the same. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the respondent voluntarily tendered her resignation therefore the authority has rightly accepted the same, has no force for the reason that prior to the acceptance of the resignation, the respondent herself approached the competent authority for withdrawal of the same.
In the light of above discussion, this appeal having no substance stands dismissed with no order as to costs.