' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Salar Hussain Shah, ex-Inspector of Police, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the order dated 2nd December, 1980 rejecting review petition against petitioner's retirement under section 12(11) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders dated 10th January, 1980 and 2nd December, 1980 passed by the competent authorities, be set aside and he be re-instated in service with all back benefits.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined the Police force as A. S. I. On 10th July, 1949 but fell into trouble in the year 1974 when he was compulsorily retired from service on 23rd October, 1974.
' However, his appeal was accepted and he was reinstated. During the course of his service, he was promoted as Inspector of Police and got lot of commendation certificates and cash rewards, for his commendable work, a fact not denied by the Department. However, by the impugned order dated 10th January, 1980 D.I.-G., Lahore Range, Lahore, retired the appellant, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by clause (ii) of section 12 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1973, allowing him all the pension benefits and privileges of proceeding on L P R, if applied for by the appellant within 15 days from the date of the said order. He preferred an appeal before the 1.-G. P., Lahore on 23rd November, 1980 but the same was rejected on 2nd December, 1980. Hence this appeal.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the parawise comments submitted by the Department. Lengthy arguments have been advanced on behalf of the appellant through his learned counsel to show that appellant had excellent record of service and there was no justification with the competent authority to order his retirement under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. It has also been urged that competent authority in the case of the appellant, would be I.-G. P. And not the D. I.-G. Police, as he was promoted as Inspector by the said authority.
4. We have given-our anxious thought to all the arguments advanced in this case and find that the only point relevant for adjudication before us is whether the appellant was retired by the competent authority or not. All other facts so stated before us with regard to his' commendable performance, are irrelevant in this case in view of coming into force of the P. C.
0., 1981. The law on this point is now settled, that this Tribunal can only look into three kinds of cases under the P. C.
0., 1981 i. e. Whether a person has completed 25 years of service or has not been retired by the competent authority. However malice has also been accepted as one of these grounds. In the present case the only point as observed earlier, is whether the appellant was retired by the competent authority or not. We have been referred to the Punjab Police E & D Rules, 1975, and have satisfied ourselves, that in case of Inspector of Police, D. Is the competent authority and not the I.-G.
P. In view of the above, it would not be possible for us to interfere with the impugned orders, as the only point raised in this case, has been demolished. With coming into force of P. C. O. 1981, this Court or any other Court in the country is precluded to interfere with the subjective decision of the competent authority under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The result is, that we dismiss the appeal as being without any meats. The appellant however, is permitted to exercise his constitution right under P. C.
0., 1981, of filing a fresh review petition if so advised, before the Competent Authority. There will be no order as to costs.