' MAMOON KAZI, J.---Leave is sought against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore disposing of appeals filed by respondents in the two petitions.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondents while posted at Haroonabad, District Bahawalpur, as Foodgrains Inspectors were served with a charge-sheet dated 16-11-1989 attributing heavy loss of foodgrains stored in the Government Godowns to them. The respondents were found guilty of the said charges by the Inquiry Officer and the Authorized Officer recommended a major penalty of dismissal from service for them in addition to the recovery of Rs,7,93,638 from them. A show-cause notice was sent to the respondents who failed to send a reply with the result that, penalty was imposed upon them as recommended by the Authorized Officer.
3. Aggrieved by award of the said penalties, the respondents first filed their respective departmental appeals to the Appellate Authority which, in case of Akhtar Ali, although, set aside the dismissal orders but maintained the recovery of the said amounts from the respondents vide order dated 16-7-1991. The appeal filed by respondent Muhammad Ajmal was, however, dismissed as time-barred. The respondents also filed a revision before the Secretary, Food but the same was rejected vide order dated 4-5-1992. The respondents also availed the right of personal hearing which was afforded to them and thereafter, they filed their respective appeals before the Punjab Service Tribunal, which were allowed vide judgment dated 24-4.1995 and the order of imposition of the said penalties was set aside and respondent Muhammad Ajmal was also ordered to be reinstated into service.
4. The impugned order indicates that apart from the merits of the case, the other reasons which have weighed with the learned Tribunal for allowing the respondents' appeals is that appellant Alchtar All had ceased to be a civil servant on 19-7=1990 when the said penalty had been imposed upon him as he had already retired from service on 15.7-1990, Consequently, the disciplinary proceedings pending against him had abated, Reference in this regard was made to the Tribunal's earlier judgment reported in 1983 PLC (CS) 1141 which also supported this view, Section 2(1)(b) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 defines "Civil Servant" as follows; "civil servant" means a person who is a member of a civil service of the province or who holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the province, but does not include=
(I) a person who is on deputation to the Province from the federation or any other province or authority;
(ii) a person who is employed on contract, or on work-charged basis, or who is paid from contingencies; or
(iii) a person who is a 'worker' or 'workman' as defined in the Factories Act, 1934 (XXV of 1934) or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (VIII of 1923):"
5. No doubt, as is clear from the above definition, a person who has retired from service does not fall within the purview of the definition of "Civil Servant", therefore, technically, the Tribunal appears to be right, but the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before us has been that, the respondents had been found to be involved in the embezzlement of a very heavy quantity of foodgrains and upon interpretation of the said definition of "Civil Servant" by the Tribunal, guilty persons would go scot free. To us this technical omission, failing to cover a retired civil servant in the definition, does not appear to be intentional. Since there is no authoritative pronouncement of this Court in this regard, leave is granted to consider the above question pending final disposal of this petition.
6. The order of the Tribunal in respect of the reinstatement of the respondents shall remain suspended.