1. ' M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).-In this case the appellant, an ex-SubDivisional Officer in the Irrigation Department challenges his retirement from service under M. L. R. 114 under the orders of the Governor of Punjab dated 18-3-1972. At the relevant time the appellant WAS holding the officiating charge as Sub-Divisional Officer, Lower Jhelum Canal Circle, Sargodha. The appeal was admitted on the basis of allegations contained in paragraph 10(1v) of the grounds of appeal as to the mala fide nature of the impugned order. The order also states that the appellant had no further allegations to make in this regard. The following issues were framed :-
(i) Whether the order of retirement of the appellant under M. L. R. 114 is vitiated due to mala fide on the part of respondent? (0. P. A.).
(ii) Relief.
2. ' The appellant to establish his plea of mala fide adduced two witnesses apart from his own statement. A. W.-1, Mr. Anwar Ali Bhatti, Sub-Engineer who had been working in the Sikhanwali, Quarry Sub-Division during the year 1969-72, stated that Mr. M. A. Qureshi who was the Chief Engineer, Lyallpur inspected the Sikhanwali Sub Division some time in 1971 and the appellant consulted him for the recruitment of a new Foreman in Sikhanwali Quarry. The witness counselled that the existing incumbent, Mr. Abdul Sattar being an old hand his displacement could result in labour problem whereupon the appellant told him that the Chief Engineer has asked him to replace the existing Foreman. In the cross-examination be admitted that normally the Chief Engineer could have asked for the same to the Executive Engineer, who was accompanying the Chief Engineer at the time of inspection, or the Superintending Engineer but the witness was not sure as to whether the Superintending Engineer at the relevant time was present. A W 2, Mr. Abdul Satter who was employed as Foreman at Sikhanwali for the last 15-16 years stated that about 4 years ago (his statement before us is dated 26th July, 1976) Mr. M. A. Qureshi, Chief Engineer visited Sikhanwali Sub-Division and desired to remove the witness from service but on the plea that he had 15-16 years service he was allowed to remain in service. He further stated that the overseer had told him that he was to be replaced by another person of "Sahib" but in his statement be did not clarify "Sahib" was referable to whom. Finally the appellant as A. W. 3 corroborated the above two witnesses and further stated that be had informed Mr. M. A. Qureshi to pass the orders himself which will be implemented but according to Mr. Qureshi wanted the job to be done quietly. On the refusal of the appellant the Chief Engineer felt annoyed and took it ill. Thereafter the appellant also stated that there was a complaint against him made by a Contractor, Kh. Abdul Latif which initially was enquired into by Executive Engineer Hafizabad Di vision who reported that the complaint was baseless. Accordingly the result of the enquiry was conveyed to the Secretary by Mr. M. A. Qureshi the then Chief Engineer. But Kb. Abdul Latif persisted and made another complaint which was again referred to Executive Engineer, Hafizabad Division who on 8-10-1971 sent the report to the Chief Engineer. The Chief Engineer Mr. M. A. Qureshi called the appellant to whom it was explained that it was the same complaint and the case had already been reported to the Secretary, Irrigation as not proved but the Chief Engineer nevertheless on 28-2-1974 issued the charge-sheet. The appellant had replied to the charge-sheet, but on 18-3-1972 he was retired from service.
3. Consequently the Chief Engineer in February 1973 dropped the case as the appellant in the meantime had been retired and the enquiry report was also in his favour. The appellant was questioned by the counsel for the respondent as to his conduct of coming into possession of letter Annexure 'C' to appeal which was confidential and was written by the Chief Engineer to the Secretary Irrigation and was never endorsed to the appellant. He explained that he had hen able to get hold of the decument through his an sources.
4. ' The case was fixed for the consideration as to whether the appellant has been able to establish prima fade his plea of mala fide on the part of the competent authority. Needless to say that the competent authority under M L R 114 in this case was the Governor of Punjab. We find that the appellant has not even formally suggested anywhere in his evidence that the Governor acted due to personal spite or was actuated by malice while passing the order. It is nowhere suggested in the evidence that the Chief Engineer. Mr. M. A. Qureshi has sent the name of the appellant to the Governor. On the other hand, M L R 114 empowered the competent authority to pass order if he was of the opinion that the conduct of the appellant was covered by any of the clauses of M L R 114. The opinion of the Governor could be based on any information not necessarily the one reported to him by the Chief Engineer. Tne action carried the presumption of regularity in its favour. We are therefore not inclined to accept the contention of the appellant that he has been able to establish a prima facie case of mala fide on the part of the competent authority. The appeal thus has no force and is accordingly dismissed with nor order as to costs.
5. Appeal dis wined.