' The facts giving rise to the instant Constitutional petition are that the petitioner, Muhammad Anwar Bajwa, Executive Director, Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Islamabad, was served with two show-cause notices, dated 17-4-1998 and 18-4-1998, by the then Chairman of the bank accusing him of having committed irregularities which according to the show-cause notices rendered him liable to be proceeded against under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules of the Bank.
The alleged irregularities referred to in the notice dated 17-4-1998 related to the years 1989 and 1997 while those referred to and made basis of the show-cause notice dated 18-4-1998 related to the years 1984 to 1989. Vide the afore-mentioned show-cause notices, the petitioner was called upon to explain his position viz-a-viz the allegations forming the basis of the show-cause notices afore-mentioned and he was asked to show-cause as to why major penalty of dismissal may not be imposed on him.
2. The petitioner feeling himself aggrieved of the said show-cause notices challenged the same before this Court through captioned Constitutional petition. On the Constitutional petition coming up before my learned brother Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, his Lordship was pleased to pass the following order on the petitioner's C.M. No,1789 of 1998 on 5-5-1998: "Subject to notice for a date to be fixed in the main petition, status quo shall be maintained, in the meanwhile."
' Status quo order reproduced hereinabove continues to hold the field till today.
3. The petitioner, in the meanwhile, on attaining the age of superannuation, stood retired from the service of the respondent bank on 3-4-2000. Consequent upon his retirement from the service of the bank, he called upon the bank to finalise the case of his pensionary and other retirement benefits. The response of the respondent bank to the aforesaid demand of the petitioner was that the petitioner's case for award of pensionary and other benefits could not be finalised on account of the pendency of his Constitutional petition in which the order of status quo as aforestated, had been passed by the High Court. Accordingly, faced with this situation, the petitioner moved civil miscellaneous application being C.M. No,3067 of 2000 for an early hearing of his Constitutional petition, so that the same is disposed of in accordance with law and the way is paved for the finalisation of his case for the grant of pensionary and other retirement benefits by the respondent bank. On the aforesaid C.M. Coming up before this Court on 1-8-2000, the office was directed to fix the main Constitutional petition for today.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions: "1. That show-cause notices though issued in the year 1998 made the irregularities allegedly committed by the petitioner in the years 1984, 1989 and 1997. On the very face of notices, therefore, it appears that these were actuated by bad faith and were ulteriorly motivated. For, if the petitioner had really been guilty of the irregularities mentioned in the impugned notices, why did the respondent bank not take any action pursuant thereto against the petitioner for all these years and postponed the same till the year 1998; ' that it is no doubt true that the High Court directed maintenance of status quo' and thereby stopped the respondent bank from proceeding ahead with the show-cause notices. However, the respondent bank could have agitated against the status quo order before a higher ,forum and have it set aside. However, it did not do so. Therefore, if the disciplinary action pursuant to the show-cause notices issued to the petitioner could not be completed till this day, it was the respondent bank which was to blame and not the petitioner;
3. That the petitioner during the pendency of the Constitutional petition, stood retired from the service of the bank on attaining the age of superannuation on 3-4-2000. Consequent upon his retirement, the show-cause notices shall be deemed to have abated. The respondent bank can, therefore, not take any action against the petitioner in pursuance of the said show-cause notices nor can it refuse to finalise the petitioner's case for the grant of pensionary and other retirement benefits on account of the said show-cause notices. Reliance in this behalf was placed by the petitioner's learned counsel on Rule 54-A of Fundamental Rules and serial No,15 of ESTACODE 1983 Edition and Muhammad Ehsan v. The Secretary, Corporation of the City of Lahore (PLD 1957 (W.P.)
Lahore 119).
4. That having rendered meritorious service to the respondent bank and having retired from as senior a position as that of an Executive Director, the petitioner is certainly entitled to all the pensionary and other retirement benefits."
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the Federal Government appearing on behalf of the respondent bank gracefully conceded the legal position as taken by learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. I have considered the afore-noted submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned notices as also the Reference Books cited by learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. Contention raised for and on behalf of the petitioner by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned notices were actuated by bad faith and were ulteriorly motivated is not without force. The show-cause notices were no doubt issued in the year 1998. However, the alleged irregularities which were made the basis of these notices related to the years 1984, 1989 and 1997. If there was any merit in the allegations forming the basis of these notices, the question which arises and to which no plausible explanation is forthcoming is as to why the disciplinary action was postponed by the respondent bank till the year 1998 and what was the concerned official of the bank doing all these years in between. Any allegation of this nature, if there is any element of truth in it, must be brought to the notice of the employee concerned and an opportunity afforded to him to explain his position viz-a-viz the same. Delaying the initiation of the disciplinary action inordinately renders the legitimacy of the disciplinary action highly doubtful. It only suggests that these allegations are only ornamental in nature and are designedly kept in reserve in the armoury of the bank to be used against an employee at an opportune time. Such a tendency in the Government departments and the Government owned/controlled Institutions has to be condemned. For, these tactics employed by superiors against their subordinates lead to heart burning and frustration. The sufferer in the ultimate analysis is the Institution. An employee who is made target of such inordinately delayed disciplinary action becomes disheartened and cannot work with devotion for his Institution. Be that as it may, the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner by the respondent bank in pursuance of the impugned show-cause notices was questioned by the petitioner before this Court which directed the maintenance of status quo in the matter during the pendency of the Constitutional petition. Now, if the respondent bank was so sure of the legitimacy of action against the petitioner, it should have made a grievance of the order of status quo passed by this Court and should have agitated against the same before a higher forum. It is a matter of record that the respondent bank did not do any such thing till this day and the order of status quo continues to hold the field. I would again hold the respondent bank responsible for not agitating against the order of status quo. The petitioner is not to blame at all in this behalf. The petitioner's learned counsel lastly contended that consequent upon the retirement of the petitioner, the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the impugned show-cause notices afore-mentioned has abated. This contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is not without force either. Petitioner's learned counsel in support of his last mentioned plea placed reliance on Rule 54-A of the Fundamental Rules. For facility of reference, the said Rule is reproduced hereunder:- "54-A.If a Government servant, who has been suspended pending inquiry into his conduct attains the age of superannuation before the completion of inquiry, the disciplinary proceedings against him shall abate and such Government servant shall retire with full pensionary benefits and the period of suspension shall be treated as period spent on duty."
' A perusal of Rule 54-A of Fundamental Rules would show that if a disciplinary action is initiated against the Government servant and the said action remains inconclusive during the course of his service and he retires on attaining the age of superannuation in the meanwhile, not only the unconcluded disciplinary action shall abate against such a Government servant but that he shall also be entitled to full pensionary benefits. In the case reported as Muhammad Ehsan v. The Secretary, Corporation of the City of Lahore (PLD 1957 (W.P.) Lahore 119). The facts were that the petitioner Muhammad Ehsan was employed as a Sub-Inspector Octroi in the corporation of City of Lahore and was proceeded against by the Corporation on account of faulty assessment of tax.
While the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him were still on, he stood retired from service.
His retirement from service notwithstanding, an order of dismissal was passed against him after the date of his retirement. Muhammad Ehsan feeling himself aggrieved of his dismissal subsequent to his retirement questioned the same before the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. The writ was accepted and it was held by the High Court that the Corporation was not entitled to dismiss him after he had retired from its service and, to penalise him for such dismissal in respect of his Provident Fund etc. The writ was issued as aforesaid and the Provident Fund and other dues illegally withheld by the Corporation were ordered to be paid to Muhammad Ehsan Octroi Inspector. It shall thus, be seen that a disciplinary action which is not completed and taken to its logical conclusion during the service of a Government servant, cannot be completed after his retirement and made basis for his punishment. The facts of the case of Muhammad Anwar Bajwa are also exactly the same. The action initiated against him pursuant to the show-cause notices abovementioned admittedly was not completed for whatever reason during the course of his service. It cannot be completed after his retirement. For, the show-cause notices in consequence of his retirement stand abated and are of no legal effect. This being the legal position, the petitioner Muhammad Anwar Bajwa, was well within his rights to call upon the respondent bank to finalise the case of his pensionary and other retirement benefits which cannot be withheld by dint of any reason or logic.
8. As a natural corollary to the foregoing discussion, the Constitutional petition is accepted, the impugned show-cause notices are declared to have abated and as such of no legal effect and the respondent bank is directed to finalise the petitioner's case for pensionary and other retirement benefits.