1978 PLP [C (PLC(CS))

M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN.)‑‑This appeal has been preferred by the appellant, an Ex‑Sub‑Inspector of Police, to challenge his retirement under M L R 114 by the order of the President of Pakistan as published in the News‑papers on 13‑3‑1972. The appeal was admitted for hearing on 26‑10‑1974 on the basis of the allegations about male fide as contained in paragraph 9(1) of the grounds of appeal. Since the appeal involved allegations about male fide the following issues were framed ‑‑ (i) Whether the order of compulsory retirement of the appellant under M L R 114 is vitiated due to male fide on the part of respondent? If so to what effect? (O. P. A,) (ii) Whether the order of compulsory retirement has not been passed by the competent authority? If so, to what effect? (O. P. A.) (iii) Relief. As is apparent from the order no farther issues were claimed. The onus of both the issues above was upon the appellant. He produced two witnesses besides himself. A. W. 1, Irshad Ahmad Khan Yousafzai, an M. N. A. from Mailsi Tehsil and District Multan, stated that at above 5‑00 p. m. on 24‑2‑1972 in his presence a vehicle belonging to Rajput Company was stopped the appellant as the same was heavily over‑loaded. In the aforesaid Bus was also travelling. The bus‑owner also happened to be a friend of the aforesaid Qazi Mohammad Aslam. Qazi Mohammad Aslam intervened and wanted the appellant to let off the bus without any challan or impounding the same. The appellant however remained adamant which engendered annoyance to the aforesaid M. P. A. The other witness, Ch. Wali Muhammad son of Muhammad Ashraf was also a member of the Punjab Assembly who was initially elected on Pakistan People's Party Ticket but later on abandoned the same. He deposed that Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khar, the then Governor of Punjab convened a meeting of the M. P. As. from Multan Division in which Qazi Mohammad Aslam complained against the appellant as according to him he misbehaved with him and his family members when they were travelling in the aforesaid bus. He also stated that the appellant challaned and impounded the vehicle and un-boarded the passengers including the M. P. A. and his family. All the M P. As present in the meeting suggested that to vindicate the prestige of the Member, Provincial Assembly the appellant tie expelled from service. However in cross -examination he conceded that he could not say on what date the meeting took place and the same could be on 25‑3‑1972. He also admitted that he did not speak to the Governor about the injustice done to the appellant or to the persons similarly circumstanced nor re raised any objection in the Assembly at the stage the service laws were passed. He also admitted that he did not confide to the appellant as to the Incident of the meeting above. The appellant as his own witness stated that at above 5.00 p. m. he stopped and checked Bus No. M N 4758 at Mailsi and the vehicle being overloaded he registered a case on the same date under section 279/336, P. P. C. against the Bus Driver, and impounded the bus. He had also un-boarded all the passengers. Qazi Mohammad Aslam appeared on the scene and objected to the action taken by the appellant. The appellant insisted that since his action was within law therefore be would not accept the persuasions of the M. P. A. that the bus be allowed to go. He expressed his apprehension that Qazi Mohammad Aslam was responsible for his retirement. On the basis of the above oral evidence and the documentary evidence such as the copy of the F. I. R. in the above‑noted case and the report in the Daily Roza Namcha (A W 3/2) about Qazi Mohammad Aslam's intervention, the appellant argued that the action against him was male fide. Hence his retirement was not in accordance with law. According to him the evidence as already led by him was sufficient to discharge the onus as to the prima facie case of male fide and the respondents be called upon to produce the documentary evidence in their possession is rebuttal. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand argued that the order in this case was passed by the President of Pakistan and there was not even the formal allegation in the entire evidence led by the appellant that the competent authority was actuated by malice or acted due to personal consideration. According to the learned counsel all that the appellant alleged was that Qazi Mohammed Aslam, M. P. A. felt offended and lie complained to the Governor but there is nothing on record to show that the Governor at any stage passed on the complaint to the President of Pakistan. Thus nothing turned upon the evidence of any of the witnesses produced by the appellant. He further pointed out that only A W 2 Ch. Wali Muhammad deposed about the complaint by Qazi Mohammad Aslam to the Governor but he was not sure as to the date of the meeting between the Governor and the M. P. As. of Multan Division and he could not controvert the suggestion that the meeting could have taken place on 25‑3‑1972 i. e. long after the order was passed by the President or the Governor. After hearing both the parties we are clearly of the view that the appellant has failed to suggest what to speak of proving the mala fide on the part of the competent authority who, in this case, was the President of Pakistan. We find considerable merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant bas not been able to connect the incident at Mailsi which took place on 24‑2‑1972 with the retirement order. The appellant was required to establish prima facie that the retirement order was mala fide by leading the evidence from his own sources but we are of the view that the evidence led by the appellant fails to discharge the onus. In fact all the official acts carried the presumption of correctness in their favour which has not been displaced by the evidence led by the appellant. We accordingly hold that there is no force in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. There are no orders as to costs. Appeal dismissed.