1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-The Government of Punjab has sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 17-5-1982 whereby it took the view that as long as a civil servant bad not in fact retired from service he could revoke a request made by him to proceed on voluntary retirement on completion of 25 years of service even though that offer had been accepted and the civil servant had proceeded and enjoyed substantial part of the leave preparatory to retirement.
2. ' Muhammad Iqbal, the respondent, was a Food Inspector posted at Gujrat, his home district, in 1979. He received an order of transfer to Rawalpindi. He then submitted an application dated 27-7- 1979 that he was a heart patient for the last four years and needed proper care from his family members. He requested for the cancellation of his transfer orders and if that was to be maintained he prayed that "I may kindly be granted L. P. R. w,e,f, 31-3-1980 as I am holding bulk wheat stock which is likely to be cleared by this time". The competent authority on the basis of these submissions and the recommendations received from the immediate superior of the respondent passed the following order on 25-2-1980.
3. "On his completion of 25 years' qualifying service as verified by the District Accounts Officer, Gujrat, 365 days L. P. R. On full pay with effect from 21-10-1979 is hereby sanctioned to Mr. Muhammad Iqbal, Foodgrains Inspector, Gujrat, on his own request as admissible under rule 3(iii) of the Revised Leave Rules for Civil Servants, 1978. The official shall stand retired with effect from 20-10-1980 (A.
4. N.)."
5. ' On 29-9-1980, that is, about 22 days before his actual retirement and after enjoying about a year of leave preparatory to retirement he sought permission to be allowed to work in the department with full benefits and also to be promoted as Assistant Food Controller with retrospective effect. He was informed on 12-10-1980 that as he bad proceeded on L. P. R. On his own request, his claim for reposting and promotion could not be considered. He then filed a representation to the Director Food Punjab, the next higher officer, pressing his claim. The case was examined and the representation was rejected.
6. ' The respondent filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. The Tribunal found that the question raised in the appeal was whether the "appellant was continuing in service before he changed his mind to withdraw his request for retirement." The Tribunal found that notwithstanding the leave preparatory to retirement granted to him he continued to be in service while enjoying such leave and on the basis of its earlier decision in the case Mian Nuruzaman v. Province of Punjab decided on 15-2-1982 and finding it quite similarly to the decided cases of Abdul Nabi v. Government of West Pakistan (1) and Jai Ram v.
7. Union of India (2) held that while continuing in service the respondent had the right to recall his offer of retirement and having done so while in service the Government was bound to give effect to it.
8. ' At the hearing as both the parties were represented and the issue raised in this petition for special leave to appeal had already been decided by this Court in the case of Secretary Government of Punjab v. Shamoon Bahadur (3), we decided to convert this petition into an appeal.
9. ' The decision in Abdul Nabi's case proceeded on altogether different facts and laid down a different law than what has been laid down by the judgment of the Tribunal under appeal. The general law governing the situation is that an offer can be recalled or revoked till its acceptance. A departure from this general law was sought to be made out on the basis of paragraph 8 of the memorandum issued by the Finance Department on 27th of April, 1967. It provided that such an offer or "intimation, once submitted, shall be final and shall not be allowed to be modified or withdrawn". It was held that this memo. Had not the effect of a service rule and was not capable of altering the general law. In that case after obtaining medical advice the civil servant on 6th of May, 1969 made an application for the grant of six months leave preparatory to retirement. On the 22nd of May, 1969 leave preparatory to retirement was granted to him. In the interregnum he obtained a second medical advice which was different from the first one and on its basis on the 19th of May, 1969 be applied for the cancellation of his leave application but in the meantime he had acted on the first application. These facts make it clear that the request had been revoked before its acceptance or having been acted upon. When the competent authority accepted the earlier request there was, in fact, no request for acceptance as it had been revoked by letter dated 19th of May, 1969. The delay in transmitting the application or its reaching the competent authority will not make the legal position different. In addition to it, the instructions which were sought to be enforced against the civil servant were issued by the Finance Departments and were not considered to be of such efficacy and force as to have the effect of law or rule interrupting or modifying the general law of the land. In the case {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1973 Quetta 4 (2) AIR 1954 SC 584
(3) PLD 1979 SC 835 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' under discussion the revocation of the leave or retirement offer had taken place long after its acceptance and after it had been acted upon by both the parties. The Tribunal was in error in readily assuming that if a person continues to be in service he can alter his position to any extent and at an moment and for any reason, irrespective of how the other party dealing with his representation has dealt with it.
10. ' In the decision of the Indian Supreme Court an orbiter was picked up the rule of law. The civil servant in that case had proceeded voluntarily o retirement after attaining the age of 55 years and was enjoying leave after such retirement which he could under the Rules and wanted while so enjoying the leave to revoke his offer of retirement. It was held that as the retirement had taken effect and he was enjoying leave preparatory to retirement only on the strength of a service rule he could not be allowed to change his offer. It was after so holding that the learned judges in that case observed as follows- "In view of our decision on this point, the other point practically loses its force. It may be conceded that it is open to a servant, who has expressed a desire to retire from service and applied to his superior officer to give him the requisite permission, to change his mind subsequently and ask for cancellation of the permission thus obtained ; but he can be allowed to do so long as he continues in service and not after it has terminated."
11. ' We are not commenting or examining the decision of the Service Tribunal in Nurruzaman's case because that is directly the subject-matter of another appeal pending in this Court where it can be examined.
12. ' The decision of this Court in. Secretary, Government of Punjab, Food and Co-operation Department v. Shamoon Bahadur fully covers the controversy raised in this appeal. The decision given in Abdul Nabi's case was explained and distinguished and thereafter it was held- "Nonetheless when the L. P. R. Was about to come to an end the respondent, by an application dated 3rd of June, 1971, showed his desire to withdraw his request which apparently was misconceived as on that date an effective order for his retirement had already been passed. The option having been once exercised, it did not lie in his mouth to go back on it in the context of the finality of the consequences ensuing therefrom by its acceptance."
13. The law laid down incorporates and reflects the principle of locus paenitentiae. We accept the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Service Tribunal and dismiss the claim put forward by the respondent. No order as to costs.