S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). -Muhammad Ashraf Chauhan, Senior Training Officer, Agriculture Department, Punjab on L. P. R.. Has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, against order dated 5th October, 1981, of the Punjab Government and the Appellate order dated 18th April, 1982, by which he has been retired after completing 25 years' service qualifying for pension and other retirement benefits.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the retirement order dated 5th October, 1981, and order dated 18th April, 1982, by which his review petition has been rejected, be set aside and he be re-instated in service.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was retired under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, by the Governor of the Punjab on 5th October, 1981, on completion of 25 years' service quali--fying for pension and other retirement benefit. Aggrieved against this order the appellant filed review petition before the Governor of the Punjab but the same stood rejected.
Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at this preliminary stage of hearing and have gone through the record of this case carefully with their assistance. The main grievance made out by the appellant's counsel is that it was incumbent upon the competent authority to serve him with a show-cause notice before any action against him was taken.
5. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced before us as well as have taken into consideration the argument given on his behalf in the Memorandum of Appeal so filed before this Tribunal. The fact of the matter is that the appellant has been retired under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, and the said action is fully protected by Article 13 of the Provisional Constitutional Order, 1981, which lays down that no appeal shall lie against such order unless and until, it is proved that the appellant had not completed 25 years' service of the order was passed by the authority not competent to do so. In the present case, both these ingredients stand fully fulfilled, therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order which is hit by Article 13 of the P. C. O., 1981.
6. The result is, we dismiss the appeal in limine under Article 13 of the P. C. O., 1981. However, there will be no order as to costs.