' This is a constitutional petition filed by Muhammad Siddique petitioner, for declaration that the order of the Administrator, Town Committee, Kot Mithan, dated 3rd July, 1980 and that of the Review Committee, Dera Ghazi Khan, dated 15th September, 1980 are illegal void, mala fide and without lawful authority and that the same may, therefore, be quashed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Siddique, petitioner, was Octroi Inspector serving the Town Committee, Kot Mitban, when on 3rd July, 1980, by order of the Administrator, Town Committee, Kot Mithan, he was retired in the public interest from service under clause (II) of section 12 of ,he Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. At the time his retirement, the petitioner had completed thirty years of service qualifying for pension and other retirement benefits, which retirement benefits were granted to him in the retirement order. On 17th July, 1980 the petitioner filed an appeal before the Review Committee against the retirement order, which was rejected on 15th September, 1980. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the present constitutional petition which is now before me for disposal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the terms of retirement order dated 3rd July, 1980 (Annexure E to the petition) the petitioner was retired under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, and since the said Act did not apply to the petitioner, as he was not in the Local Council Service, the order was illegal and void. Learned counsel further submitted that the Review Committee which heard the petitioner's appeal decided the case against the petitioner on the basis that as ten per cent reduction in the size of the establishment was made, in view of letter No, S 0-VI (L G)-I (50)/79 dated 18th February, 1980 issued by the Punjab Local Government, Social Welfare and Rural Development, and the petitioner had not agitated that the retrenchment was over the 10% limit, the petitioner was legally and properly retired, but the said letter was only applicable to Local Council Service employees and not the non-Local Council Service employees.
Learned counsel further submitted that the Administrator, Town Committee, Kot Mithan, who was the competent authority to retire the petitioner had twice scrutinized the case of the petitioner on 27th December, 1979 and 10th January, 1980 and had found him fit and had allowed him to retain his post, but that when the elected Chairman of the Town Committee, Kot Mithan, took charge of the office, he got a resolution passed mala fide against the petitioner by all the members of the Town Committee, which resulted in his retirement.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents, who strongly opposed the petition, submitted that the petitioner being an ordinary employee of the Town Committee and not holding a public office could not seek redress in writ jurisdiction, which was generally available to a civil servant and that the petitioner's remedy for declaration or damages lay before the ordinary Civil Court. In this connection, learned counsel referred to Arura Masih v. The Administrator Municipal Committee and another (I) and R. T. H. Janjua v. National Shipping Corporation (2). Learned counsel further submitted that since the petitioner did not raise the first two contentions, now urged before this Court by his counsel, before the Review Committee, which had the jurisdiction to and did decide the appeal, this writ should not issue, as the petitioner had disentitled himself to the said relief by his conduct. In this connection, learned counsel cited Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (3) and Akhtar Iqbal Puri v. Chief Settlement Commissioner etc. (4). Learned counsel further submitted that as the Administrator, Town Committee, Kot Mithan, was competent under rule 4 (a) of the West Pakistan Local Councils and Municipal Committees Servants (Retirement)
Rules, 1966, to order the retirement of the petitioner, the mere fact that a wrong provision of law was mentioned in the retirement order dated 3rd July, 1980, did not invalidate the action taken by the competent authority, In this connection, learned counsel relied upon S. Sharif Hashmi v. Chairman, Screening Committee, Lahor (5). Laetly, learned {{FOOT NOTE}}
(I) Law Notes 1981 Lah. 188 (2) PLD 1974 SC 146
(3) PLD 1964 SC 829 (4) PLD 1977 Lah. 249
(5) 1978 SCMR 367 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' counsel submitted, on the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in S. Sharif Ahmad Hashmi's case, that the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court did not compel it to strike down every void order and that the Court was competent to exercise its discretion not to do so, which it should do by dismissing the petition.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to this case. It is true that the petitioner on 27th December, 1979 and 10th January, 1980 was found by a previous Administrator of the Town Committee, Kot Mithan, to be fit to retain his office, but this does not mean that the new Administrator, who came later, could not order his retirement in the public interest at any later stage, if the same was desirable in the public interest. Since the two earlier orders were passed in the financial year 1979- 80, nothing debarred the new Administrator, Town Committee, Kot Mithan, from passing an order in the financial year 1980-81.
5-A. The order of retirement dated 3rd July, 1980 refers to action being taken under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, but it is obvious that this reference is due to inadvertence and that action apparently was taken under rule 4 (a) of the West Pakistan Local Council and Municipal Committee Servants (Retirement) Rules, 1966. Since the Administrator, Town Committee, Kot Mithan, was the competent authority to retire the petitioner under the said section, the inadvertent reference to a wrong provision of law does not invalidate the order. In this connection, S. Sharif Ahmad Hashmi's case may be referred to. The action against the petitioner under rule 4(a) of the 1966 Rules was taken "in the public interest", which expression is also to be found in the retirement order dated 3rd July, 1980.
6. The petitioner was last Octroi Inspector with the Town Committee, Kot Mithan. He was non-Local Council Service employee. The constitutional safeguards available to civil servants of or servants of Municipal or other Statutory Corporations holding public offices against their die missal or removal from service are not available to the servants of a registered Company or the general staff of a Municipal or Statutory C Corporation. The general law of master and servant is applicable to their cases and the only remedy available to them in such cases is to sue for damages for wrongful dismissal, termination or retirement. In this respect R. T. H. Janjua's case and Arura Masih's case may be referred. The latter case relates to an employee who was Octroi Clerk in the Municipal Committee at Raiwind and which case applies on all fours to the present case. The petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to any relief in the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction.
7. During appeal, the service record of the petitioner was inspected and it was found that the personal file of the petitioner, as observed by the Review Committee, "did not inspire confidence", as pages bad been frequently changed, and the Review Committee also noted that during the period the petitioner remained Inspector of Octopi post, the annual octopi income was almost half of what it was when he was shifted from that post. The Review Committee also referred to other complaints personally urged by the Chairman of the Town Committee before them against the petitioner. However, the Review Committee, without entering into any discussion as regards the petitioner's conduct, held his retirement good on the basis of valid retrenchment and dismissed the appeal. Irrespective of the fact whether the letter dated 18th February, 10 issued by the Punjab Local Government, Social Welfare and Rural Development Department, which lays down inter alia provision for enactment of the establishment by ten per cent. Each financial year, applicable to the case of the petitioner or not, even if the present writ maintainable, I would not exercise my discretion in favour of the loner, as 1 consider that the Review Committee's observations with 3rd to the petitioner's personal file and conduct do not justify any trance being granted to him. Following the principle contained in some Mohiud Din's case. I would also not like to interfere in this case, petitioner, who had a right to raise legal objections in appeal before review Committee, which he has done now, did not do so there at all.
' Before parting, I would like to state that the principle contained Sharif Ahmad Hasmi's case does not apply to the instant case, as the t order, howsoever illegal it may be, was not void, as it was passed by intent officer who had the power to order the petitioner's retirement.
' For the foregoing reasons, there being no merit in this petition he is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.