1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

7. On the other hand learned District 'Attorney has submitted that all what has been represented on behalf of the appellant is nothing but misrepresentation of facts by stretching certain incidents with laboured efforts to connect Mr. A. Z. K. Sher Dil with those incidents, as to show that he was inimical towards appellant. According to learned District Attorney that all the efforts of the appellant would go futile when the allegations are compared with the record of this case, as the record will clearly prove that Mr. A. Z. K. Sher Dil never figured any way either for the retirement of the appellant of otherwise doing anything in order to harm his interest.

8. We have carefully attended to the arguments so advanced by both the parties and have taken pains to go into the record of this case minutely in order to see whether the allegations so made by the appellant against Mr. A. Z. K. Sher Dil had any foundation or not.

9. The history of the case reveals that Mr. A. Z. K. Sher Dil remain Director of Food Punjab from 24th December, 1977 to 24th November, 1980. The appellant was retired on 5th January, 1980, as approved by the Governor of the Punjab on the recommendations of the Screening Board consisting of the following :‑-- (1) Additional Chief Secretary Chairman S. G. A. & I. Department. (2) Member (Colonies) Board of Member Revenue. (3) Secretary of the Administrative Co‑opted Department concerned. Member (4) Secretary (Services) S. G. A. & I Department Member/ Secretary It would be important to note that Mr. A. Z. K. Sher Dil was not a Member of the Screening Board nor he was competent authority in the case of the appellant. We have also looked into the Character Roll of the appellant in order to judge whether the decision of the Screening Committee was subjective or objective in nature. The perusal of the Character Roll shows that he had earned average entries and some adverse entries also. Undoubtedly there are two adverse entries recorded by Mr A. Z. K. Sher Dil for the years 1978 and 1979, but the appellant bad average entries prior to the tenure of Mr. A. Z. K. Sher Dil as well. This fact stands further proved by the representation of the appellant himself which he made against such, average remarks. We have also taken note of the fact that on 24th June, 1978 the Director of Food Punjab Mr. A. Z K. Sher Dil recommended two months leave ex‑Pakistan to the appellant while he was working under him at Rawalpindi. It is also on the record that there were complaints against the appellant from Depot Holders Association against his work and conduct but the same Director who is being considered the cause of his retirement did not agree with the allegations so levelled against him and did not initiate any action on the said complaints. It is also on the record that at one stage the appellant way in confrontation with his landlady with regard to the payment of arrears of bills and what was done in this matter was that he was only advised to settle the dispute with the said lady. We have also looked into the enquiry held against the appellant by late Mr. Muhammad munawar Khan, O. S. D. Enquiries. S. & G. A. D. in which it has been observed that the appellant was misled by his staff' and expected to show better control over the subordinate and discretion in taking his own decision. This enquiry was held against him when he had already been retired from service.

10. We have also looked into the relations of the appellant with the said Malik Muhammad Rafiq D. F. C. and find that they were quarrelling with each other and had strained relations before the arrival of Mr A. Z. K. Sher Dil. This quarrel continued and culminated into Anti -Corruption Enquiry it is stated by the appellant that Mr. A. Z. K. Sher Dil. was the person who fomented bad relations between Malik Muhammad Rafiq and the appellant, but on the contrary we find that Malik Muhammad Rafiq was transferred on 31st January, 1979 from the Office of D. F C Sargodha to District Jhelum by the same Director Food. This Malik Muhammad Rafiq was ultimately prosecuted sentenced and stood retired on 31st December, 1979.

11. With regard to the case of Wasi Hussain D. F. C. we find that he was suspended on the report of the appellant and was transferred from Rawalpindi on 10th June. 1978 by the same Director Food. This Director Food never showed any leniency towards said Wasi Hussain as he warned him during the course of inquiry that strict action would be taken against him if he did not co‑operate. It is also on the record that the same action was repeated by the said Director Food against the said D. F. C. We have further noted that said Wasi Hussain reported to the Director Food that the appellant was hostile towards him and he would not like to proceed to Rawalpindi but the Director Food at para. 47 of the file, dated 15th July, 1978 did not agree with him and directed him to comply, with the transfer order. This very Director also suspended said Wasi Hussain on 7th August, 1979. 1t is also on the record that the same Director passed orders against Wasi Hussain that he should be proceeded under E & D Rules and also appointed Enquiry Officer against him.

12. All this clearly shows that the allegations made against Mr. A. Z. K. Sher Dil although are very tall in nature yet the appellant had failed to bring anything on the record to convince us that Mr. A. Z. K. Sher Dil was inimical towards him and was real force behind the autho rity which retired him. The composition of the Screening Committee also A belies the above allegations as it was presided over by a senior man than Mr‑ A. Z. K. Sher Dil and also by other Members who were in no way amenable to the influence of said Director Food. The ultimate authority in the case of the appellant being Governor of the Province. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said authority would not have acted independently but at the behest of said Director Food.

13. In view of the above we are of the considered opinion that the appellant was retired under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and in view of Article 13 of P. C. O., 1981, this Tribunal would have no jurisdiction to interfere with such order. We are of the confirmed view that the point of malice the only point available to the appellant, has not been proved in any manner whatsoever, against Mr. A. Z. K. Sher Oil, Director Food, therefore, we do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order on the ground of malice. The result is we proceed to dismiss the appeal as being without any merits. However parties shall bear their own costs. M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed.