' M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).-The appellant, an Ex-P. C. S. Is aggrieved of his retirement under M. L. R. 114 w. e. f. 12 3-1972 under the order of the president of Pakistan. At the time of retirement he was posted as Assistant Commissioner, Taunsa District, Dera Ghazi Khan. In 1974 he filed a writ petition in the High Court (Writ Petition No. 706 of 1974) which though admitted for regular hearing, abated in view of Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan and the promulgation of Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. He filed an appeal in this Tribunal which was admitted to regular hearing on 6-11-1914 on the plea of mala fides on the part of competent authority. It was recorded in the admitting order that the appellant entirely relied upon pares 3 to 13 of the Writ Petition in support of his plea of mala fides, which referred to the allegations in the Writ Petition No. 706 of 1974 in this regard.
2. Since the appeal was to be decided on the question Of mala fide the following issues were framed t-
(i) Whether the order of compulsory retirement of the appellant passed by the respondent under M. L. R. 114 is vitiated due to mala fide and if so to what effect? 0. P. A.
(ii) Relief.
3. The appellant produced 4 witnesses. A. W. 1 Syed Naza Ali Shah Advocate stated that at the relevant time in 1971 he was the President of City People's Party Taunsa City and the appellant was the Assistant Commissioner. He stated that he filed a criminal complaint No. 18/2 dated 18-2-1972 under Section 504/506, P. P. C. On behalf of Mr. Maqsood Ahmad Balooch against Kh. Ghulam Ilyas the sister's son of Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khar the then Governor of Punjab. The witness went on to say that the appellant summoned Kh. Ghulam Ilyas and he appeared in response to the summons in the Court of the appellant and observed that the appellant had not acted wisely in summoning him and threatened to take revenge upon the appellant. The witness also deposed that a week before the compulsory retirement of the appellant Mr. Ghulam Ghazi Khar, brother of Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khar rang up the then Governor and requested him that the appellant should not remain in service. He also rang up then Chief Secretary in this regard. It was also stated by the witness that a month before the termination of the services of the appellant, he in the company of Ghulam Ghazi Khar met the then Governor and on that occasion the Governor told his brother Ghulam Ghazi Khar that the appellant may not to be subjected to such a severe punishment and it would be sufficient to transfer him from Taunsa but Mr. Ghulam Ghazi Khar insisted that he should be removed from service.
4. Mr. Hamid Khan Jaffar A. W. 2 only stated that the Khawaja family was annoyed with the appellant and had heard from Ghulam Ghazi Khar that he would see that the appellant did not remain in service. Mr. Maqsood Ahmad Balooch a journalist also appeared as A. W. 3 and narrated the incident of a meeting in which Kh. Ghulam Ilyas picked up a dispute with him and insulted him.
He stated that he filed a complaint under section 500/ 504, P. P. C. Against Kb. Ghulam Ilyas and a counter-complaint was filed by Kh. Ghulam Ilyas against him through one of his servants. The appellant summoned both the witnesses as well as Kh. Ghulam Ilyas, in the two complaints.
Similarly A. W. 4, Mohammad Ibrahim, General Secretary of Local Islahi Committee, Taunsa stated that he knew that the appellant was an honest and dutiful officer. He also deposed about the meeting at Taunsa in 1972 chaired by the Tehsildar, Taunta in which a quarrel took place between Kh. Mohammad Ilyas and Maqsood Ahmad Balooch A. W. 3, a journalist who was physically expelled from the meeting by Kh. Mohammad Ilyas. Consequently the meeting was dispersed and A. W. 3 Maqsood Ahmad Balooch filed a complaint against Kh. Mohammad Ilyas in the Court of the appellant who summoned Kh. Mohammad Ilyas in the aforesaid complaint case upon which the said Kh. Mohammad Ilyas felt insulted. He also supported the utterances and approach of Ghulam Ghazi Khar to his brother, the then Governor of Punjab, Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khar to weed out appellanm service. The appellant himself appeared as A. W. 5 as his own witness. Stated that he was first posted at Taunsa as Tehsildar in 1955 and during stay there had very goad relations with late Kh. Nizam-ud-Din ho da Nasheen of the Dargah of Kh. Mohammad Suleman. Kh. Ghula a carried on a fund with Kh. Nizamud-Din. He also stated that a r" of Kh. Ghulam Zakria was convicted by him in a criminal case 'a 1977 the witness stated that he was posted at Taunsa as Assists missioner and after a few months Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khar Imam over nor of the Punjab and his nephews began their nefarious activiti e then reiterated the instances narrated by him in paragraphs Nos. f the writ petition on the basis of which the appeal had been admitt. This Tribunal.
He also proved document P. W. 5/1.9 regarding complain . 18/2 dated 22-2-1972 filed by Mr. Maqsood Ahmad P. W.
2. In the examination the witness admitted that there are some adverse entre him.
5. After the appellant had closed his evidence the case was taken up for the consideration of the question whether the appellant had succeeded in establishing a prima fade case of mala fide so as to call upon the respondents to produce the evidence in their possession and to justify the action. The appellant addressed the arguments. As he felt handicapped due to the absence of his counsel and at his request he was permitted to file written arguments also.
6. The appellant has contended that from the evidence on record enmity or at least strained relations with the family of Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khar the then Governor of Punjab, are established and the telephonic talk between Ghulam Ghazi Khar with Ghulam Mustafa Khar established that the action against the appellant was mala fide. In written arguments he has taken up the position that Mr. Khar included his name in the list of Government officials to be retired under M. L. R.
114. The counsel for the respondent has urged that the action against the appellant was taken by the President on 12th of March 1972 and therefore the allegations of mala fide on the part of Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khar even if proved, will not vitiate the orders of the compulsory retirement. The learned counsel submitted that in order to dislodge the presumption of regularity attached to the official acts the appellant has to establish mala fide on the part of the competent authority. The appellant endeavoured to meet this argument by adopting the stand that the appellant's competent authority under M. L. R. 114 was the President but included the Government of the Punjab if so authorised. He argued that in fact after the President's announcement retiring certain officials, a similar notification was issued by the Governor in respect of the persons with regard to whom an authority had been given to him so in the case of the appellant competent authority included the Governor of Punjab. This argument of the appellant cannot be accepted despite its ingenuity.
7. We are inclined to agree with the submission of the counsel for respondent that what to say of proving mala fide against the President of Pakistan by whose order the appellant was compulsorily retired, the appellant failed to even allege mala fides against the President of Pakistan. It is pertinent that even in his statement there is not the bare assertion that the then Governor had prevailed upon the then President to take action against the appellant. In our view it was essential for the appellant to establish that the competent authority was motivated by the mala fide considerations. We are fortified in our view by the following observations of the Supra as Court in PLD 1974 SC 151 at page 170 :- "It is necessary for a person alleging that an action has taken mala fide to show that the person responsible for taking the Jon has been motivated by any one of the considerations mentioned In this view of the matter we feel that even if the evidence pro by the appellant is accepted as such, no mala fide is proved against authority in this case i. e. The President of Pakistan.
8. The appellant thus failed to establish any case of mala against the competent authority. The appeal has thus no force and dismissed accordingly. There will he no order as to costs. Appeal