FAIZ KARIM (MEMBER). --Mansoor-ul-Hassan, appellant has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the order dated 7-1-1980 vide which the appellant was retired under section 12(ii) of the Civil Servants Act. The appellant has impleaded the Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab as respondent.
2. Through this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant be re-instated in service.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was retired under section 12(11) of the Punjab Civil Servant Act vide order dated 7-1-1980 of the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Housing and Physical Planning Department. Aggrieved by this order the appellant filed review petition dated 12- 1-1980 to the Chief Secretary, Punjab which was dismissed vide letter dated 23-1-1981 of the Chief Secretary (Annexure 'C--- of the appeal). It appears that the appellant also previously filed Appeal No.453/1981 before the Punjab Service Tribunal which was dismissed vide following observations:- "The appellant has completed 25 years of service qualifying for pension and other benefits. The competency of the authority issuing the impugned order is not questioned. No malice is imputed to the authority. Under the provisions of the Provisional Constitutional Order, 1981, this appeal abates and is, therefore dismissed. However, the appellant, if so advised, can file an appeal with the competent authority, as provided by the PCO 1981. Decision should be communicated to the parties. "
The appellant then filed instant appeal after rejection of his request for re-instatement vide letter dated 19-11-1983 of the Government of Punjab (Copy at Annexure 'A' of the appeal). Hence this appeal.
4. At the time of arguments the appellant contended that he was retired without any justification after completion of 25 years of his service. The appellant added that his case was recommended favourably by the Review Committee but the Secretary (Services) SGA&I Department kept his case for 5 months and thus the appellant could not be approved for his continuation in the service and on the other hand was retired from the service. The appellant closed his arguments while stating that he does not know the grounds under which he has been retired but he also alleged to have been retired due to malice.
5. The learned Deputy District Attorney opposed the appeal and stated that the appellant was retired on completion of 25 years of service. The learned Deputy District Attorney added that the appellant's review petition was also rejected and his previous appeal was also dismissed by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The learned Deputy District Attorney further stated that his .Subsequent application was also under caption of re-instatement in the service, which was turned down by the Government. The learned Deputy District Attorney concluded his arguments while stating that the appellant had expressed in the appeal that he did not know the grounds under which he has been retired and at the same time alleged that he was retired due to malice but the appellant failed to establish any malice from the retiring authority.
6. We have carefully considered the points so raised by the learned Deputy District Attorney and appellant. We have also consulted the record. We are of the considered opinion that undoubtedly the appellant was retired on completion of 25 years of service. This is also established fact that the review petition of the appellant was rejected and his previous appeal was also dismissed by the Punjab Service Tribunal as well as his further application to the Government for his re-instatement was rejected with the background of these facts. In the previous judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal (Case No.453/1981) no malice was imputed to the authority and the previous appeal was accordingly dismissed as the appeal abated under the provisions of the Provisional Constitutional Order, 1981. The appellant after unsuccessfully making a second attempt for re-instatement filed the instant appeal but again he has not been able to show any malice against the Government or the retiring authority. In fact the appeal is also not properly framed because in the subject of the so-called appeal nowhere the appellant has shown himself as appellant rather he has started with "reasons of complaint/facts/history" and ended with his name and address without any proper prayer.
7. Hence we find no ground to interfere in the impugned order and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
Judgment to be communicated.
No order for cost.
A.E./58/Sr.S.