MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J. --- The instant writ petition is meant to challenge the order dated 26.08.2003, whereby, respondent No, 2/Director General (NADRA), retired the petitioner on completion of his 20-years service.
2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that minor penalties could not be made basis for passing the impugned retirement order and thus the impugned order is also hit by the principle of "double jeopardy".
3. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of respondent/department that after fulfillment of all requisite formalities i,e, issuance of show-cause notice end personal hearing to the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed, therefore, there is neither violation of any rule nor the petitioner has any vested right, to maintain this writ petition. The learned counsel representing NADRA placed reliance on an unreported judgment of this Court dated 06.02.2012, rendered at Bahawalpur Bench in the case "Hafeez-ur-Rehman v. The National Database and Registration Authority, etc." (Writ Petition No, 2282/2006- BWP).
4. I have heard the arguments of learned' counsel for the parties and perused the entire available record.
5. It is correct that a Show-Cause Notice was issued to petitioner and even he was also afforded personal hearing before passing of the impugned order, as such, on the face of it there is no violation of rules. Furthermore, there is no denying the fact that in the Show-Cause Notice reference to his previous conduct with regard to imposition of three minor penalties, was referred, but the language of impugned order indicates that same is not solely based on said charges, rather as required by Section 13(1)(i) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, the competent authority while exercising his power perused the entire service record of the petitioner. As the past record of the petitioner carried his previous punishments, the same could not be lost sight, thus, the competent authority rightly considered his previous record and opined that "neither in the reply to the show-cause notice nor at the time of personal hearing the employee could satisfy the undersigned as to why he should not be retired from the service under the law referred to above. "Apart from the above, in a case arising out of similar situation, this Court at the Bahawalpur Bench, in the above-cited case, after dealing with legal aspect, dismissed the writ petition vide judgment dated 06.02.2012 and a Civil Appeal No, 126 of 2013 preferred against the said judgment of the High Court, has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, vide judgment dated 29.08.2013. Taking stock of all above and while placing reliance on the case "Chairman, Central Board of Film Censors, Islamabad and another v. S. Muhammad All Shah" (2004 PLC (C.S) 707) and "Muhammad Qadeer and others v. Secretary, Defence Production Division, Government of Pakistan and others" (2003 SCMR 1804), I have not seen any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order. This writ petition, therefore, is dismissed. Writ.