MUHAMMAD MEHMUD ASLAM PIRZADA (CHAIRMAN).--Aziz Muhammad Senior Clerk has filed this appeal under section 4 of Punjab Servite Tribunals Act, 1974 against impugned orders dated 5-6- 1980 and 21-1-1987 passed by respondents. The appellant has impleaded, D.I.-G., Polke Multan and I.-G. Police, Lahore as respondents. By virtue of this appeal appellant has prayed that impugned orders passed by respondents be set aside and he be reinstated in service.
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant was charge-sheeted for obtaining Passport No A.G.834144 on 7-2-1979 without getting No-Objection Certificate from the Department.
In addition to this he mentioned his profession as businessman in the application form for obtaining passport. A case under Section 6 of Passport Act was registered against him for wilful concealment of his profession and causing mis-representation to obtain the passport without undergoing the formalities of obtaining No-Objection Certificate necessary for a Government servant. Respondent No, 1 after finding him guilty inflicted punishment of compulsory retirement vide order dated 8-6-1980 which reads as under:-- "Mr. Aziz Muhammad, Sr. Clerk Office of the Superintendent of Police, Multan stands charge-sheeted for obtaining Passport No, A.G. 834144 on 7-2-1979 without getting No-Objection Certificate from the Department. In addition he mentioned his profession as a businessman in the application form for obtaining the passport. Case F.I.R. No, 113, dated 22-7-1979 under section 6 of Passport Act was registered against him by F.IA. Multan for wilful concealment of his profession and causing misrepresentation to obtain the passport without undergoing the formalities of obtaining no- objection certificate necessary for a Government servant. During the trial he was acquitted and the same plea has been taken by him during his hearing in person today (5-6-1980). He has not only denied that he had given his profession as businessman but also that he never applied for the passport. He was confronted with his signed statement submitted by him on 29-10-1979 in reply to the charge-sheet and asked to state if it was signed by him. He has confirmed categorically that it bears his signatures. The text of this statement clearly indicates that he had applied for the passport form innocently without knowing the Rules and regulations on the point. The most relevant portion of his statement runs as under:- "There was no ulterior motive on my part nor I got any substantial benefit of it. My object was nothing but to visit holy places in Middle East sometime in future."
The accused Senior Clerk having admitted his guilt initially has taken a somersault on the strength of the judgment of the case cited above in which he has been acquitted by the Court. He was asked to state as to why he made two different statements at two occasions. In reply to this question he stated that the stand taken by him in Court was considered necessary to escape punishment. Evidently, therefore, the Senior Clerk is not only guilty of the charge but has made an additional attempt to controvert the true facts.
I have also gone through his service record. In 1972 he was reported to have a tendency to send applications without observing channel of command. In 1975 he was commented upon to make lot of improvements in drafting. In 1976 his referencing, paging and correspondence was found unsatisfactory and he was also assessed as a Clerk who leaks information. However, in view of his 18 years service a lenient view was taken and the Sr. Clerk was announced the punishment of reversion to the rank of Junior Clerk but he immediately put in an application dated 5-6-1980 that due to unavoidable circumstances he should be retired compuslorily giving all consequential benefits etc. In view of his personal request and unbecoming attitude the punishment of reversion is changed to compulsory retirement with immediate effect."
3.Against the impugned order dated 8-6-1980 of respondent No, 1 the appellant preferred an appeal before respondent No, 2, who decided the same vide his impugned order dated 20-1-1987 which reads as under:-- "This is an appeal preferred by Ex-Senior Clerk Aziz Muhammad of Multan Range against the orders of compulsory retirement from service passed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Multan Range. He was heard in person on 19-1-1987.
I have gone through the case, particularly the order of the D.I.-G. by which the appellant was compulsorily retired. After commenting upon the performance and service record of the representationist, which was certainly not complimentary, the D.I.-G. took a lenient view in deference to the long service of the official and reverted him to the rank of Junior Clerk. However, the representationist immediately put in an application requesting for compulsory retirement. I think in view of these facts the representationist has forfeited his claim to reinstatement in service.
It is not only his indifferent record of service, besides his misconduct but also his own request for compulsory retirement which deprives him of the right to get back into service. The appeal is rejected."
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and perused the record with care.
The main contention of the appellant's counsel is that the impugned orders passed by the respondents are contrary to law and facts and that the appellant has been illegally compulsorily retired from service.
4. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments made by the learned counsel for the appellant and find that the impugned orders passed by the respondents are justified as in view of the personal request made by the appellant to retire him from service, the penalty of reversion was changed to compulsory retirement which deprives him of the right to get back into service because by his own voluntary act the appellant forfeited every claim of reinstatement in service.
During his arguments learned counsel for the appellant has failed to pin-point and establish any discrepancy of fact or of law in the impugned orders dated 5-6-1980 and 21-1-1987 of the respondents. As such we find that the impugned orders dated 5-6-1980 and 21-1-1987 are unexceptionable either on facts or on law.
6. Furthermore, the charge for which he was penalised by the respondents stands fully proved against the appellant from the material on record and learned counsel for the appellant has failed to rebut the same by means of any oral or documentary evidence.
7. Consequently we find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed in limine.