' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).- Muhammad Suleiman ex-Sub Inspector of Police has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded Government of the Punjab, through Home Secretary, I.-G. P., D. I.-G. Police, Bahawalpur and S. P., Bahawalpur as respondents. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that he may be re-instated in service and his retirement order be declared as void.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined the Police service of Bahawalpur State on 29th October, 1949 as a Head Constable appointed by the Commissioner of Police, Bahawalpur State vide order dated 27th November, 1949. The appellant had served the Government about 30 years. His case was examined for retirement during 1974-77 but he was allowed to continue in service due to the past good record. The appellant was retired by S. P., Bahawalpur vide his order dated 10th January, 1980 under section 12(11) of. The Civil Servants Act, 1974, on the ground that he has completed 25 years of service qualifying for pension and other retirement benefits. The appellant filed appeal before the D.I.-G., Police alongwith others who had been retired alongwith him from Bahawalpur Division but the case of the appellant was rejected although a number of Sub-Inspectors were reinstated from (one from) each district of Bahawalpur Division in spite of the fact that their service record was much poorer than the appellant. The appellant filed appeal before respondent No, 2 on 26th July, 1980 which was still pending on the date of this appeal and after awaiting for 90 days he had taken the course to agitate his grievance before this Tribunal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by Malik Azam Rasool assisted by Representative of Department and have perused the record of the case carefully with their assistance. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that as he was appointed by the Commissioner of Police, Bahawalpur State therefore he cannot be retired by the Officer below the rank of said Officer. In this way he has challenged the competency of the S. P., Bahawalpur to retire him from service. With regard to his alleged bad performance which was made basis of his retirement, it has been submitted that the case of the appellant was examined and considered for retirement in 1975 by competent authority who vide order dated 12th May, 1975 allowed the appellant to continue in service therefore, it cannot be said that the early adverse record stood in his way in any manner. It has been pleaded that the appellant earned good reports whereas the adverse remarks of 1978 are vague and not tenable in law. It has been submitted that the appellant filed a mercy petition before the I.-G.P. The I.-G.P. Was informed by Sikandar Ahmad Rai S.O. Police-I, Home Department that in the case of representation from the persons so retired under section 12(11) of the Civil Servants Act, 1974, a Committee should be formulated consisting of two senior officers of Grade 19 or Grade 18, but the competent authority who passed the order of retirement should not be allowed to associate with the Review Board. The learned counsel for the appellant has made grievance that while the case of the appellant was put up for review before Review Board the competent authority in utter disregard of the advice by the Home Department participated in the proceedings and thus the decision taken against him in rejection of his review petition would be based on mala fide. While concluding, the learned counsel has also submitted that the respondents have taken biased view in the matter of rosirement of (Riasity) Police Officers. He has given the figure showing thereby that out of 82 Sub-Inspectors, 25 were retired which were belonging to the Bhawalpur State and thus the usual practice of retiring 10% was not adopted and the retirement figure in their case came to 33%. It was further submitted that out of 25 retired persons from Bahawalpur Division, five were non-Riasity and 20 were Riasity.
An example has also been cited of a person, namely Riaz Rao whose case was dismissed by the Punjab Service Tribunal but after one day of the dismissal he was restored suo lieu. A complaint has also been made that Major Sultan All Mahmood should not have been on the Review Committee which has actually resulted in rejection of review petition so filed by the appellant.
4. We have given our anxious thought to the contentions so raised by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as that of the District Attorney assisted by Malik Azam Rasul, Advocate and find that the only point which needs consideration in this case would be whether association of the competent authority in the review Committee which rejected the case of the appellant was desirable in view of the Memo. No, HP-1/2-36/81 dated 17th August, 1981 from the Home Department.
The perusal of the record reveals that this grievance was duly redressed when the second review Committee was set up under the orders of the Governor/M.L.A. In this second review Committee Major Sultan Mahmood, Superintendent of Police, Bahawalpur, was not associated and all the members were independent officers who were nothing to do with the initial retirement of the appellant. The Committee again considered the case of the appellant and found him unfit to continue in service. The service record of the appellant was fully scrutinized and it was found that there were 13 bad entries in his service roll including censure, stoppage of increments and forfeiture of service etc. Five of his A.C.Rs adverse remarks. His last A.C.R. For the year 1979 carrying a very strong observation, "the sooner he is weeded out, the better. He is stigma on the Police Department". His service record also discloses that the claim of the appellant that this entry pertaining to the year 1979 was expunged is not correct. Few of the entries i,e, regarding his work of investigation of crimes against property, standard of health, integrity and the class of report were partially amended but the pen picture as well as other category of work so adversely observed still stood in his A.C.R. It was due to his poor performance all round that his prayer for re-instatement was once again rejected. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that any injustice has been done in his case or that his case has not been fully considered.
5. With regard to his grievance that he had been victimized due to the regional prejudices we also do not find any force in the same when we come across in the record that the authorities gave him full chance of hearing as well as took all the pros and cons of his case into consideration. It is also on the record that a third review Committee is again going to sit to consider- his case in view of his peculiar circumstances i,e, looking after a large family and other adverse family circumstances.
6. In cases of civil servants who have been retired after the completion of their 25 years of service qualifying for pension and other benefits, the law is settled on this point in view of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 and many other judgments of this Tribunal as well as decisions of the Supreme' Courts. This Tribunal can only interfere in cases where a civil servant has not completed his 25 years of service and bag been retired by an incompetent authority or there was a positive malice fully established against the competent authority which retired the civil servant, An. Attempt has been made to show that in cases of Riasty civil servants of Babawalpur Region a policy of discrimination has been adopted but after going through the entire record of this case which was made available to us by the respondents we are fully satisfied that then is no positive proof on the record to accept this claim. We have full sympathy with the appellant keeping in view his long years of service in the Department and also strained circumstances of his family but the matter we leave entirely to the third review Committee which will be the proper forum to take decision in such matters. The Supreme Court o Pakistan confirmed the view of Service Tribunals when it was held by it that in matter of retirement under clause (2) of section 12 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, the decision of the competent authority was always subjective in nature and no exception could be taken to it by the Services Tribunals.
7. In view of the above discussion we are of the considered opinion that no interference is called for by this Tribunal in the matter of retirement of the appellant which has taken place under clause (2) of section 12 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, in accordance with law laid down on this subject.
Resultantly, the appeal fails and is dismissed as being without any force. However, there will be no order as to costs.