Through instant petition, petitioner has assailed office order dated 19.06.2019, passed by Respondent No. 3, whereby fresh inquiry proceedings were initiated against petitioner along with others under the Punjab Employees Efficiency , Discipline and Accountability Act (PEEDA Act), 2006 despite the fact that petitioner stood retired from service as Forest Guard w .e.f. 4.5.2016.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is no justification for initiation of fresh inquiry proceedings against petitioner as he stood retired from service long ago on 04.05.2016. He further submits that since statutory limitation of two years, as prescribed under the PEDA Act, 2006, for finalization of inquiry proceedings against petitioner , who is a retired employee, has elapsed, any further proceedings in this regard would be repugnant to law. He adds that even otherwise, petitioner had been exonerated in the inquiry proceedings culminating vide office order dated 11.02.2014. In the end, he submits that impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. In support, he has placed reliance on Province of Punjab through Conservator of Forest, Faisalabad and others v. Javed Iqbal (2021 SCMR 328), Muhammad Siddique v. Divisional Forest Officer, Okara [2014 PLC (C.S.) 253] and Syed Raza Mehdi Baqari v. Province of Punjab through Secretary , LG&CD Department and 2 others [2016 PLC (C.S.) 1046 ]. In this regard, learned counsel also subm its that issue to this extent has already been settled by this Court vide judgment dated 07.04.202 1, passed in W.P. No. 3717 of 2019 titled Mulazim Hussain v. Govt. of the Punjab & others. For facility of reference, he has read out the following operative part of said order: "7. As regards the argument of learned Law Officer relating to Rule L8 of the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules, it is clearly mentioned in the proviso to Rule 1.8(b) that no such departmental proceedings shall be instituted after more than a year from the date of retirement of the government pensioner . Reliance is placed upon Province of Punjab through Conservator of Forest Faisalabad and others v. Javed Iqbal (2021 SCMR 328), Mirza Muhammad Iqbal v. Additional Secretary (General), Government of the Punjab Education Department, (School Wing), Lahore and another [2007 PLC (C.S.) 432], Ehsan-ul-Haque v. Executive Engineer , Ahmadpur Canal Division Ahmadpur East and 2 offers [2011 PLC (C.S.) 1523 ] and Muhammad Siddique v. Divisional Forest Of ficer, Okara [2014 PLC. (C.S.) 253 ].
In Javed Iqbal's case supra , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under .: "13. The legislative intent and the purposive interpretation of the Act read with the supportive material discussed above, it is clear that the finalization of the departmental proceedings not later than two years of the retirement of the employee under the proviso to section 21 of the Act is a mandatory provision and any proceedings after the said statutory period shall stand abated and any orders passed after the efflux of the above time period are void and have no legal effect.
14. In the instant cases, the departmental proceedings against the respondent have been finalized after a period of two years of his retirement, the departmental proceedings, therefore, have no legal consequence and the subsequent departmental orders are void and have no legal effect. For this reason we take no exception to the impugned judgments and are of the view that they do not warrant any interference. Leave is, therefore, declined and these petitions are dismissed. For future, the Government must ensure that cases of retired employees are fast tracked so that they are concluded within the aforesaid statutory timeframe allowing the retired employees to enjoy their retired life and the Government to save unnecessary expense and time in pursuing matters against retired employees."
8. There is no second opinion that the rule of law requires that things should be done as they are required to be done or not at all. Every person in execution of law should follow strictly the law as laid down and should not exceed the limit of law for, any reasons whatsoever . Reliance is placed upon Syed Raza Mehdi Baqari v.
Province of Punjab through Secretary . LG&CD Department and 2 others [2016 PLC (C.S.) 1046 1. The case law relied upon by learned Law Officer is quite distinguishable, thus, not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.
9. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Consequently , impugned SCN dated 02.04.2019, issued by Respondent No. 1, is declared to be illegal and without lawful authority ."
3. When confronted, learned Law Officer concedes the fact that issue involved in this petition has already been settled in the afore-referred case. He has expressed no objection if the matter is referred to Respondent No. 3 for decision in accordance with law as well as case law referred supra.
4. In this view of the matter , 'I am inclined to transmit copy of this petition along with annexures to Respondent No. 3 with a direction to treat it as objections against impugned inquiry proceedings and decide the same strictly in accordance with law as well as case law referred supra, after hearing the petitioner and all concerned, through a speaking order , preferably within a perio d of thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order .
Compliance report shall be furnished to this Court through Deputy Registrar (Judi.).
5. With the above directions, this petition is disposed of.