MIAN MUHAMMAD JAHANGIER, J.~ Muhammad Asad Ali Chaudhry appellant pre-mature compulsory retired from Army Service with no fault of officer, appeared in the C.S.S, examinations held -in the years 1998, 1999 and 2000, his forms were entertained and candidatures were accepted every time in C.S.S. Exam. After issuance of the roll number, the appellant was called to participate in the examination for the year 2000. He successfully passed the written test with high merits resultantly he was called for medical test, psychological test and interview and he appeared in both tests and also the final interview conducted on 18.9.2001 and due to his successful performance he believed to have obtained the remarkable position in the order of merit but quite un-fortunately on 1.11.200.1 his name was not mentioned in the newspaper containing the result of the successful candidates and on the same day he received the telegraphic despatch dated1.11.2001 with this information that his candidature had been rejected due to poor previous record and discipline. He filed writ petition bearing No. 3336/2001 which was remitted to the Federal Public Service Commission to dispose of the same as review petition but the appellant was not called for any hearing and routine order on the review petition was passed to promote the cas6 of some favourites as a consequence of it the appellant was constrained to file F.A.O. No. 10 of 2002 against the order dated 8.1.2002 and the case was remanded to the Commission for a fresh decision. When the decision was wilfully delayed, the appellant had filed the contempt application before this Court and during the proceedings the Commission informed that the review petition has been rejected, so the appellant again was constrained to file another Appeal No. .68/2002 with the result that the case was remanded for a fresh adjudication by invoking the review jurisdiction, but instead of disposing of the same the Commission involved in changing the Army Record for destroying the evidence in custody of the appellant with regard to his career, therefore, another Contempt Application was moved in this Court and that the impugned order dated 26.7.2002 was delivered-in the Court which reads as under:- "The Commission reiterates its decision to reject the candidature of Mr. Muhammad Asad Ali Ch. for CE.2000."
Therefore, the appellant impugned the order dated 26.7.2002 and all the previous adverse orders which are (i) the order conveyed on 7.5.2002 at the hearing of Criminal Org. No. 7/C/2002 rejecting the review; (ii) basic order rejecting the candidature of the appellant for CSS Exam. 2000 conveyed by telegraphic dispatch dated 1.11.2001; (iii) consequent refusal of FPSC to announce result of the appellant in the aforesaid CSS Exam 2000; (iv) failure of FPSC to include appellant inthe merit list of successful candidates; and (v) failure to nominate the appellant in allocation of service Group as per entitlement in the order of merit and to send him 29th Common Training Programme commenced at Civil Services Academy, Lahore for CSS Exam 2O0O, in his appeal under Section 7(3)(d) of the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance (XLV of 1977) as amended by Ordinance XVl of 2001 (dated.26.7.2002).
2. lt is submitted that the impugned final order dated 26.7 .2002 is illegal against the facts and based upon the malice.
Whereas the proceedings of personal hearing of the appellant before the Commission on 12.7.2002 make clear the stand of the respondent as given in para No. 8 which reads as under:- "In view of the position brought out in paras 6 and 7 above, it is evident the appellant was prematurely retired from the Army on moral grounds and that the M.S. Branch, GHQ which is the designated competent authority to issue the fitness certificate has clearly certified that the appellant is unfit for employment in Civil. This position clearly bars him from being considered for selection for any civil post. Accordingly, the Commission reiterates its decision to reject the candidature of Mr. Muhammad Asad Ali Choudhry for C.E., 2000."
3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties .and have gone through the record consisting of the Photo-Copies of the documents brought on record by both the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on Miss Rubia Abrar v. Pakistan (For purposes of Service of Notice through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi) and 3 others (1993 M LD 1193 (Lah)); Ch.Irshad Ahmad v. Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division Islamabad (1990 M LD 1802 (Lah.)); Messrs Diamond Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan and others (1996 M LD 654 (Pesh)); Muhammad Tufail v. Lahore Development Authority and others (1997 M LD 2642 (Lah)); Tariq Nawaz and another v. Govt, of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Health, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and another (2000 SCM R 1956 (SC of Pak.)); Muhammad Ishaq v. Sarhad Development Authority and others (1984 CLC 126 (Pesh.)); Ch. Saeed Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and 2 others (NLR 1996 Service 100); and Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Establishment Division, Islamabad v. Mirza Muhammad Irfan Baig and 4 others (1992 SCMR 2.430) (SC of Pak.)) in support of his arguments.
5. There is no need of the discussion of the relevant rules and law on the subject because the point for determination is as to which document issued by the Army Authorities be accepted or which should be rejected and that as to whether this proposition can be resolved in this appeal without recording the evidence of the parties.
6. The proceedings of personal hearing dated 12.7.2002 would show that there were four certificates in respect of the appellant received from Pakistan Army, the detail of which are as under:-
(i) page 3 of his Service Book furnished by the appellant alongwith his original application for the C.E. 2000 (Annexure-I);
(ii) certificate issued by Coro, GHQ dated 29.6.2002 Annexure-ii);
(iii) revised page 3 of his Service Book showing him fit for Civil employment (Annex-Ill); and(iv) certificate issued by the GHQ dated10.10.2001 (Annex-IV).
The original certificate as mentioned at para No. 1 was silent on the question of fitness of the appellant for Civil employment while two other certificates mentioned at serial Nos. 2 and 3 were reflecting on his fitness for civil service. The commission had already got a Certificate dated 10.10.2001 issued by the G.H.Q, which showed the appellant to be un-fit for civil employment, ln order to resolve this contradictory position the matter was referred to GHQ vide letter No. CE/1581/2000- CSS, dated 11.7.2002 (Annex-V) and on basis of correspondence with the General Headquarters, it appeared that CORO, G.H.O. had cancelled his Certificate dated 29.6.2002 and further clarified that the discharge certificate issued earlier to the appellant was in respect of his medical category only and so far the clarification given by M.S. Branch, GHQ is concerned, it showed that the appellant was pre-maturely retired from the Army on moral grounds and per the M.S. Branch's existing policy such prematurely retired persons are not fit for any civil service. Here the question would arise as to what authenticity is attached to the correspondence as shown in the proceedings whereas there are many documents produced by the appellant on the record which show that he was compulsorily retired from the Army Service with no fault of the officer e.g. there is a certificate (Annexure-M) on the record discussed by Major OIC Syed Aamar Hussain which makes it clear that the appellant was relieved on pre-mature compulsory retirement due to no fault of the officer on 15.10.1998 and he was found fit for re-employment in any other civil/government/semi-government organization and he was med cat 'AYE' on retirement. If the earlier documents were to be cancelled by any competent authority in the Armed Services then the latter documents relied upon by the Commission must havedisclosed as to what action was taken against the officer who issued earlier orders in favour of the appellant. At this stage the learned counsel for the respondents had no convincing arguments with him and he simply stated that the appellant had maneouvred the documents in his favour i.e. there is a conflicting situation in the light of the documents on record, so the controversy cannot be resolved at this forum. His contention carries no force, for the reason that the Commission while disposing of the review petition should have summoned, the representative of the competent authority in the Armed Forces afongwith the record to convince that the earlier documents in favour of the appellant were manoeuvred and the concerned officers who issued the documents, Annexure-1 (Service Book) furnished by the appellant alongwith his original application for the CE-2000, (ii) Annexure-ll (Certificate) issued by CORO GHQ dated 29.6.2002 and Annexure-lll, Service Book showing him fit for civil employment, was punished for the fault on his part. Due to this gap in the correspondence in-between the Commission and the G.H.Q, one must believe that earlier documents were issued by the competent authority.
7. Now if the appellant was found not fit in Civil Service on moral grounds even then in the correspondence it must have been disclosed as to what was the nature of allegation against the appellant and what was the punishment awarded to him because the life in the Armed Forces is based upon discipline and if there is any violation of any discipline it certainly comes on the record and on basis of the same the punishment is awarded. Even on this aspect there is a silence that as to what was the nature of the allegation against the appellant on moral side, therefore, the latter documents brought on the record by the Commission (respondent No. 1) are worth no reliance as same may be based upon mala fide as indicated by the appellant in thegrounds of appeal.
Therefore, the orders dated 26.7.2002, 29.7.2002 alongwith order dated 8.1.2002 cannot sustain irr the eye of law.
8. In view of the discussiop above, all the impugned orders regarding rejection of candidatures of the appellant, his representations and review petitions, as discussion above, are set aside and respondent No. 1 is directed to announce the final result of C.S.S. Exam. 2000 including the result of the appellant and in light thereof to amend the merit list of the selectees to make allocation of Services Group to the appellant as per his entitlement on the basis of his merit position. The appeal is hereby accepted.