' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Muhammad Zafarullah has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, against the order, dated 27th September, 1982, passed by the learned Collector, Saddar Sub-Division, Gujranwala and the order, dated 27th March, 1983 passed by the learned Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala. The appellan t has impleaded the Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala and the Assistant Commissioner/Collector Saddar Sub-Division, Gujranwala, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that his appeal be accepted and he may be reinstated in service with all back benefits.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was retired under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, by the competent authority after he has completed 25 years service from 30th September, 1982. His length of service was verified by the District Accounts Officer, Gujranwala. The appellant filed a representation before the next higher authority which was also rejected. Hence this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a lengthy appeal as well as has lead very lengthy arguments and has submitted that actually the retirement of the appellant was due to malice as once an enquiry against him under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, failed on the strength of his strong defence, the competent authority took revenge by getting rid of him under the authority of section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. He has however, made a grievance that he was brought on Patwar cadre in 1961, therefore, his earlier service of candidate, should not be counted towards his pension benefits and in this way the requisites of section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, were lacking. It has also been submitted that under rule 11 of the Punjab Anti- Corruption Rules, when a case is registered against a public servant, it is only the appropriate Anti- Corruption Committee to decide whether the delinquent should be prosecuted or not. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that instead of taking recourse to this rule, a cut short method has been applied which was unlawful.
6. We have taken into consideration the arguments so advanced by the parties before us and have satisfied ourselves by perusing the service book of the appellant and the report of the District Accounts Officer, that the appellant has completed 25 years of service on 20th October, 1980 and has been drawing his pay for the last 25 years, without any break. In view of the established fact on the record we are afraid we cannot accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has not served for 25 years and therefore, he cannot be retired under section 12 (ii). There is no denying the fact that the appellant was proceeded under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules for misconduct and was reinstated in service later on, when it was found that his defence was good. Be that as it may the point to be determined by us is whether this Tribunal can interfere in the order passed by the competent authority retiring a civil servant after he has completed 25 years service qualifying for pension. Law on this point has been settled both by the Supreme Court of Pakistan as well as by this Tribunal in a large number of cases that the relations between a civil servant and the authority is that of employee and the employer and after the said civil servant has completed 25 years service, the competent authority is empowered to retain him or to ask him to retire with full pension benefits and similarly a civil servant can tell the authority that he is no more interested in service and will proceed on retirement. However, this Tribunal in his judgment delivered in case of Shabiur Raza v. I.G.P. Laid down that if a period of 25 years was not completed or that the impugned order was a result of malice and incompetently passed, such order can be interfered with. In the present case, we do not find either the order being the result of malice or that the appellant has not completed 25 years or the order being incompetently passed, therefore, we do not find any exception to interfere with the impugned order which is fully legal and justified.
7. In the light of above discussions, the appeal is dismissed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs,