S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). - Abdul Karim, Game Inspector (Retd.) has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Conservator of Forests (Parks and Wildlife) Punjab, Lahore and Deputy Conservator of Forests, Parks and Wildlife, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, the Appellant has prayed that he has been retired by an authority who was not competent to' retire him in view of PCO, 1981 and the impugned order be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while he was working as Game Inspector, was retired by Conservator of Forests, Parks and Wildlife Punjab vide his order dated 5-6-1982. The appellant filed a Review Petition to the said Authority which has not been decided as well. Hence this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the retirement of the appellant can only be made by Deputy Conservator of Forests, who was the competent authority under 1978 Rules, He has further argued that the said, post of Deputy Conservator of Forests was abolished by the Government and the post of Conservator of Forests was created, thus it was incumbent upon the Government to amend 1978 Rules and to empower the said authority to retire the appellant himself. According to the learned counsel in view of this failure on the part of the Government, retirement order is void because only the Government can proceed under section 12 (ii) in his case and nobody else read with section 4 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974.
5. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that in fact the post was not abolished but the nomenclature was changed and, therefore, the Conservator of Forests was fully within its competence to proceed against the appellant. He has relied on letter No. B&A/BUD/ BII 366/4262 dated 29-10-1981, addressed by the Government to the Conservator of Forests.
6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and have also perused the letter so relied upon by the learned District Attorney. The fact of the matter is that the appellant has been retired by Conservator of Forests whereas the competent authority in his case being appointing authority, would be Deputy Conservator of Forests. Further what we find is that the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests was abolished and the power of retirement would now vest with the Government as laid down under section 4 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. This being the state of affair, we have taken pains to see the records to find whether the Government in its own wisdom did delegate the power of retirement under section 12 (11) to the Conservator of Forests or not. What we find is that no such powers have been delegated till the time the appellant was retired.
7. With regard to the letter so produced before us we find that it should be of no help to learned District Attorney as this letter talks about creation of certain posts and allocation of certain posts/grades and nothing else. However, learned District Attorney has raised a point which needs adjudication i.e that the retirement of the appellant was approved by the Minister and the Secretary, therefore, according to the learned District Attorney it would render that the Government took the decision and the same could not be challenged. While going through the file it is found that the Secretary and the Minister had observed that the action with regard to the appellant and few others would be taken by the competent authority. This observation takes away the force of arguments so made by the learned District Attorney.
8. In view of the above we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has been retired by the incompetent authority i.e. Conser--vator of Forests. The law on this point is absolutely clear as Article 13 of P.C.O. 1981, itself makes it obligatory in matter of such retirement that a person should have 25 years service to his credit and he should be retired by the competent authority, therefore, in view of the mandatory provision of P C.O., 1981 as well as section 12 (ii) of the Civil Servants Act, 1974 we proceed to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order as void ab initio and hereby direct that the appellant be re-instated in service as if he has never been retired from service.
However, there will be no order as to costs.