ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Mehr Haq Nawaz, formerly Head Constable No. 11, has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the orders of his retirement passed by the competent authority under clause (ii) of section 12 of Punjab Civil Ser-- vants Act, 1974, after he had completed 25 years of service qualifying for pension and other retirement benefits.
2. He has impleaded Superintendent of Police, Jhang, D.I.-G. Police Sargodha Range, Sargodha, Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.
3. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order dated 3-5-1982 whereby the appellant had been retired from service be set aside and he be re-instated in service with full back benefits.
4. The case is at the stage of preliminary hearing and we find that the order has been passed under section 12, clause (ii) of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, retiring the appellant from service with all pension benefits. The appellant has been retired by the competent authority after he had completed 25 years of qualifying service.
5. Though this case is at the stage of preliminary hearing, even then the parawise comments from the respondents were called for on this appeal of the appellant to arrive at a definite decision. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned District Attorney as well. The only point raised in this case by the learned counsel for the appellant is of malice against Superintendent of Police, Sargodha. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant while working as A. S. I. With the additional charge of S.H.O., Police Station, Mid-Ranjha, under Superintendent of Police, Sargodha, annoyed Mr. Shahid Hussain, Superintendent of Police, Sargodha, in connection with registering of a case. The displeasure and annoyance of the Superintendent of Police, Sargodha, was to such extent that he gave him adverse entry and reverted him and ultimately he became instrumental in his retirement by using his personal influence to the higher authorities and also using his influence on Superintendent of Police, Jhang, who had ultimately retired the appellant.
6. We have perused the parawise comments submitted by respondent No. 1, heard the learned District Attorney and were not satisfied with the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant. He could not prove and satisfy us in any way about any malice on the part of Superintendent of Police, Jhang, who has retired the appellant under section 12 clause (ii). It is not convincing that Superintendent of Police, Sargodha could influence his colleague (Superintendent of Police, Jhang) in the retire--ment of the appellant. We have checked the record and find that Superin--tendent of Police, Jhang, applied his mind independently in retiring the appellant. We also find that whatever action was taken by the Superinten--dent of Police, Sargodha, against the appellant, while working under him, and commission was due to the acts of omissions and commission on the part of the appellant, as found during his service and were dealt in the normal way. Thus the appellant's counsel has failed to prove direct or indirect malice in this case.
7. This order of the competent authority retiring the appellant under section 12, clause (ii) of the Punjab Civil Service Servants Act, 1974 is protected by Article 13 of the P.C.O., 1981.
8. In view of the above, we do not find any exception to the im--pugned order dated 3-5-1982 so passed by the competent authority and dismiss the appeal in limine.
There will be do order as to costs.