1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑In this case the appellant, an ex‑Superintendent of Jail, is aggrieved by his retirement under M. L. R. 114, by the order of the President of Pakistan, dated 13‑3‑1972.

2. The record has been produced. The Departmental Representative has also placed on record a copy of the extracts from the Annual Confidential Reports of the appellant for the period 1962 to 1972 which also contain the endorsement that his record of service for the period 1949 to 1958 was scrutinized by the Screening Committee in 1958, who cleared him, but placed him on six months' special report. It appears that subsequently the appellant's performance was found satisfactory and he was allowed to continue in service for 14 years thereafter. As regards the Annual Confidential Reports of the appellant for the period 1962 to 1971, the appellant had only the following two adverse entries in the years 1963 and 1971: ‑ "1963‑Supervision and control over subordinates, needs improvement. 1971.‑Practices the policy of live and let live. (Not communicated)."

3. It further appears that the appellant had moved the Martial Law Authorities for his re‑instatement, who called for a report from the Home Department. The Home Department on 9th October, 1978 reported to the Martial Law Administrator, Punjab, as under:- "Out of ten A. C. Rs. from 1962 to 1971 he had earned good reports in 8 A. C. Rs. and in the other two A. C. Rs. i.e. 1963 the remarks 'Supervision and control needs improvement' are not considered as serious remarks against the officer from the service point of view because in the same A. C. R. of 1963, the reporting officer remarks that 'he is tactful, his integrity good, his co‑operation with other Depart ments is good, relation with public is cordial and that he has pleasing manners'. Similarly in 1971 the adverse remarks i.e. 'practices the policy of live and let others live' by the reporting officer were not communicated to him. Similarly, the reporting officer Brig. Zahoor H. Malik, the then I. G. Prisons had remarked 'Quite a successful Superintendent,' and had declared him 'fit for promotion'. As such both the so‑called adverse remarks stand cancelled.

4. The Department otherwise reported that the appellant was on the whole a good officer. In the year 1964, he was again considered as "as excellent Chief Executive Officer". In the year 1965, he was reported to be a hard working officer and in the year 1966, an efficient and hard working officer. Similarly his other reports were quite satisfactory.

5. Even otherwise the Department has not brought to our notice anything adverse to the appellant. There were no charges of cor ruption or any other complaints against him. In fact the Department never recommended his case for retirement.

6. After going through the record, we find that there was nothing against the appellant, except the above two adverse entries, which the Department in their report dated 9‑10‑1978 have themselves considered to have been cancelled by the good entries given by the countersigning authorities. In fact according to the relevant instructions it was the opinion of the ultimate authority which were to prevail. Thus there is nothing against the appellant.

7. In view of the position taken by the Department in their report to the Martial Law Administrator, Punjab and in the absence of anything adverse to the appellant, the retirement of the appellant under M. L. R. 114 could not be maintained. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in a recent decision in P. S. L. A. No. 244 of 1978 In re : Israr. Nabi v. The Province of Punjab, has ruled that this Tribunal is under an obligation to examine and consider the merits of the cases of the persons retired under M. L. R.

114. We accordingly accept the appeal and set aside the impugned retirement order dated 13‑3‑1972 and direct his re‑instatement in service from the date of his retirement with all benefits.