1994 PLP 247 (SCMR)

Rana MA. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record and Shamim Abbas Bukhari, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.‑ Date of hearing: 22nd April, 1992. MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.‑‑‑This is an appeal by leave' against the order of the Punjab Services Tribunal, Lahore, dated 14‑7‑1988.

2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that the respondent, Principal, Government Commercial Training Institute, Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar, was removed from service under section 12(ii) of ‑ the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, having completed 25 years of service qualifying for pension etc. He filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal noted that the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, .Education Department, had recommended for retirement on the following material: "The case is under trial in the Anti‑Corruption Establishment, Multan." The Tribunal observed that the respondent had since been acquitted in the said case and that the adverse entries in the A.C.Rs. had earlier been set aside by the Tribunal. In view of this observation the appeal of the respondent was accepted vide impugned judgment referred above. Hence this appeal.

3. We hake heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused this record with their assistance. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent was rightly removed from service while the learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment.

4. It will be noted that the basis of recommendation for removal from service was that a "case is under trial in the Anti‑Corruption Establishment, Multan. "This very basis was knocked out by the judgment of acquittal which shows that the case was started on the application of the students. The Asstt. Commissioner enquired into the matter and reported that the application was moved by the students on the instigation of two Instructors, one of whom was trying to become officiating Principal. After going through the raid report and the accompanying documents the Asstt. Commissioner held that the allegations were frivolous. The respondent was, however, tried as the case P stood already registered. Muhammad Aslam complainant appearing as P.W. 7 in the Court of Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, admitted that he himself had not audited the account and the application was made by him on the information furnished by Mudassar and Ghulam Farid (Peon and Clerk) who were admittedly removed from service by the respondent‑Principal for misconduct. The judgment of the learned Special Judge, leaves no slur on the conduct of respondent and rather shows that he was made to suffer from extraneous reasons. The very basis of the recommendation for removal from service having been knocked out, the appeal was rightly allowed by the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any misreading, non‑reading or misconstruction. The appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. AA./P‑217/S Appeal dismissed.