SYED KHURSHEED HYDER RIZVI, J.--- Petitioner Akeel has filed this Constitutional petition with the following prayer:-- "(a)That the petitioner's alleged compulsory retirement is mala fide and order of retirement, dated 24-7-1985 is made without lawful authority.
(b)That the order of retirement having been passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, being in violation of the Rules of Natural justice is illegal and of no legal effect.
(c)That the order of retirement having been passed by the Review Committee and not the Board is illegal; Meeting of the Review Committee without quorum was illegal.
(d)That the petitioner's retirement without the mandatory approval of the Federal Government cannot take effect and as such is of no legal effect. The Federal Government gave no opportunity to the petitioner to be heard.
(e)That the petitioner's retirement is discriminatory.
(f)That the petitioner be given his due seniority and promotions with retrospective effect.
(g)That the respondent be prohibited from retiring the petitioner otherwise than in accordance with law.
(h)That the petitioner be awarded the costs of this petition.
(i)Any other relief that this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be granted to the petitioner."
2. According to the petitioner, he was working as Assistant Executive Engineer in Karachi Port Trust when he received a notice from the Review Committee, dated 22-4-1985, asking him to appear before the Review Committee on 27-4-1985. The Review Committee had to determine further usefulness in service of petitioner on completion of his 25 years of service on 16-12-1985. When the Review Committee met. The petitioner was present in the Port Trust Building but he was neither called nor heard. According to the petitioner, he was condemned unheard and the order of his compulsory retirement on completion of 25 years of service was passed. The quorum of the Review Committee was not complete as only 2 members were present. Vide notice dated 24-7-1985, the petitioner was informed of his compulsory retirement. The notice of compulsory retirement of petitioner is as under:-- KARACHI PORT TRUST ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT No. E/E/1/CE/12-III/9139/85 Mr. Akeel Tejani, Assistant Executive Engineer, Works Division, Engineering Department, Karachi Port Trust.
Sub: Notice for compulsory retirement Mr. Akeel Tejani, Permanent Assistant Executive Engineer Works Division of Engineering Department, K.P.T. Drawing Rs.3,040 P.M. In the Basic Pay Scale of Rs.1,600--120--3040, is informed that with the approval of the Competent Authority he will be retired from K.P.T. Service on completion of 25 years service with effect from 16-12-1985.
He is, therefore, advised to apply for Leave Preparatory to Retirement well in advance if he desires so according to the rules.
Through Deputy Chief Engineer-I Personnel Officer, Engineer Unit, K.P.T."
In reply to the notice, dated 24-7-1985, the petitioner wrote a letter on 7-8-1985, to the respondent stating therein that the action taken against him was against all laws and rules. The petitioner alleged that he was being retired from the service because of mala fide actions at the instance of Mr. Wasim Akram, the Chief Engineer of the K.P.T., who had grudge and enmity against him because of defects pointed out by him in performance of his duty, such as miscalculations in designing of I.A. Hospital, cancellation of M.B. 18 of "E" type blocks and inadequate foundation to hold the double storey as designed by the Executive Engineer. The petitioner made some other allegations also against the concerned authorities. He alleged that he was barred from promotion to the post of Executive Engineer without any legitimate ground. He made representation against that action but he never received any reply and his grievance was not taken into consideration.
According to the petitioner, the decision of his compulsory retirement was not approved by the Federal Government and, thus, such order is of no legal effect, The petitioner, therefore, filed this Constitutional petition before this Court.
3. In the parawise comments, on behalf of the respondent, the allegations made by the petitioner were denied. It was averred that throughout the service period the petitioner never felt his responsibilities to discharge his duties efficiently and diligently. He was charge-sheeted for habitual negligence/carelessness in performance of his duty and non-compliance of lawful orders of his superiors. The charge-sheet was approved by the Board of Trustees vide Board Resolution No.764, dated 13-2-1985 and Government approval was received by Letter No.5(3)/85-P-II, dated 21-2-1985. His allegations against the Chief Engineer were also denied stating that the Chief Engineer is not the authority to retire any officer or employee of the K.P.T. And that the case of the petitioner had been reviewed by the Board Advisory Committee in accordance with the rules contained in Appendix "E" of the K.P.T. Digest before completion of 25 years service and he was recommended to be retired on completion of 25 years of service in view of grave adverse entries in service record and unsatisfactory performance as Assistant Executive Engineer. The competent authority approved the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. It was also pointed out that as per rules contained in Appendix "E" of the K.P.T. Quorum of the Committee was complete according to law. It was also submitted that the petitioner's letter, dated 7-8-1985 was put up before the Board of Trustees of the K.P.T. Which resolved vide Resolution No.332, dated 9-10-1985 that the representation, dated 7-8-1985 of the petitioner against his retirement from service on completion of 25 years of service w.e.f. 16-12-1985 be forwarded to the Government i.e. The appellate authority. The Government vide its Letter No.3(15)/85-P-II, dated 24-10-1985 intimated that the representation of the petitioner was considered and there seemed no justification for reversal of the previous decision of the Federal Government. The petitioner was accordingly informed. It was also mentioned that the petitioner had applied for L.P.R. Which had been granted to him. Further case of the respondent is that the sanction of the Government under section 24 of the K.P.T. Act was also obtained for retirement of the petitioner.
4. We have heard the petitioner, Mr. Akeel in person and Mr. Zaheeruddin Khan, learned counsel for the respondent.
5. Petitioner has submitted that false charge-sheet had been communicated to him and that neither enquiry was held and nor Enquiry Officer was known to him. He also submitted that action of the respondent in retiring him from service on completion of 25 years of service is mala fide and not in accordance with the rules.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Zaheeruddin Khan, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner had been retired on completion of 25 years of service in accordance with the rules.
According to him, any aggrieved employee has a right to file an appeal and that the petitioner had also filed such appeal and the same had been dismissed by the Federal Government. He also pointed out that under the Efficiency Rules the quorum of the Committee is required to be of 2/3rd members of the Committee, which was complete.
7. We have found that in accordance with the K.P.T. Rules and K.P.T. Act the petitioner had been directed to appear before the Review Committee who had to consider the question of his retirement on completion of 25 years of service. The allegation of the petitioner that he was not called by the Committee is not correct because the Committee had every intention to give him opportunity of hearing and for that reason he was asked to appear before the Committee on the date, the Committee had to review his case.
8. The petitioner had been charge-sheeted by the approval of the Board of Trustees vide Resolution No.764, dated 13-2-1985. This Resolution was also approved by the Government vide Letter No.5(3)/85-P-II, dated 21-2-1985.
9. The petitioner has been retired from service on completion of 25 years of service. The rules for retiring an employee of K.P.T. On completion of 25 years of service as mentioned in Appendix "E" of the K.P.T. Digest are as under:-- "Rules laying down the procedure to determine retention of Karachi Port Trust employees after 25years of service (1)The competent authority means-- (a)Chairman in case of employees whose maximum grade of pay does not exceed Rs.500.
(b)Board in case of employees the maximum of whose grade of pay exceeds Rs.500 but is less than Rs.1,100.
(c)The Board (with the approval of the Government) in case of all Heads of Departments and Officers the maximum of whose grade is not less than 1,100.
2.The retention will be determined at least 6 months before such person completes 25 years of service.
3.The case will be reviewed by an Advisory Committee constituted as under:-- (i)For employees within the competence of the Chairman, the Committee will consist of three officers appointed by the Chairman from time to time.
(ii)For officers who come within the competence of the Board, the Committee will consist of Chairman and two other Heads of Departments nominated by the Chairman.
(iii)For officers who fall within the purview of Government under section 24 of the Karachi Port Trust Act, the Committee will consist of Chairman and two Trustees appointed by the Board."
10. The case of the petitioner was accordingly examined by the Advisory Committee consisting of 2 members which recommended the retirement of the petitioner on completion of 25 years of service. Board of Trustees vide Resolution No.1120, dated 8-5-1985 confirmed the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and sanctioned the retirement of the petitioner. This matter was referred to the Federal Government for approval under section 24 of the K.P.T. Act vide Letter No.PSC-425/78/390, dated 13-5-1985. Approval of the. Federal Government was accorded vide Letter No.3(15)/85-P-1I, dated 11-7-1985.
11. The petitioner made a representation against the notice of his retirement from service on completion of 25 years to the Government. The Government vide its Letter No.3 (15)/85/P-11, dated 24-10-1985 intimated that the representation of the petitioner was considered and there seemed no justification for reversal of the previous decision of the Federal Government.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent referred to judgment reported as Muhammad Gulzar v.
Chairman, Karachi Port Trust and others 1988 PLC (C.S.) 137 wherein it has been held that the order of retirement passed by the Board of Trustees vide their resolution is in accordance with the requirements of law and there is no illegality in such action.
13. The contention of the petitioner that the Committee which had examined his case was not competent to do so because the quorum does not complete according to law, is not acceptable because under section 17(6), K.P.T. Act the requirement for quorum is presence of at least 2/3rd of the members of the Committee. In this matter, two members out of three of the Advisory Committee had examined the matter of retirement of the petitioner.
14. Learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that all the necessary parties have not been impleaded as respondents in this matter. In this connection, reliance was placed on the case reported in PLD 1992 SC 221. In the case in hand, it has been contended that Federation of Pakistan was the necessary party as the Federal Government had approved the recommendation of the retirement of the petitioner on completion of 25 years of service but Federation of Pakistan has not been made as party. We are of the view that Federation of Pakistan was a necessary party and on this ground also the petition is liable to be dismissed.
15. Taking into consideration all the aspects of this matter and relevant law and rules, we are of the view that the petitioner has been retired on completion of 25 years of service after observing the procedure as described in the rules and law mentioned above. We are, therefore, of the view that there are no merits in this petition and consequently, we dismiss it. In the circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.