1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

3. As the facts and point of law involved are identical in nature, we will dispose of these appeals by this one single judgment.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were working as D. F. O's and had completed 25 years of service when the Governor of the Punjab was pleased to retire them under section 12, clause (H) of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 allowing them all pension benefits etc. Aggrieved against these orders they filed representations to the Governor of the Punjab, which stood rejected. They also filed review petitions before the com petent authority under Article 13 (2) of the P. C. O., 1981, during the pendency of these appeals before the Tribunal but the same were also rejected.

5. We have heard the learned counsel of the appellants as well as Malik Azam Rasool, Advocate representing the respondents and have perused the record of these cases carefully with their assistance.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that the appellants had good record of service and were promoted to Grade‑18 few days before the impugned orders, therefore, the orders were not justified. It has further been submitted that Mr. S. K. Khanzada who has acted on behalf of the Governor was not Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Forestry and Wildlife Department and was only authorised to look after the work of the Chief Conservator of Forests as ex officio Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Forestry and Wildlife Department during the absence of Mr. Hassan Ali Qureshi from 23rd December, 1979 to 9th January, 1980. In this manner the learned counsel for the appeal lants have challenged the competency of Mr. S. K. Khanzada to act on behalf of the Governor and to issue the impugned orders. On behalf of Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Cheema the ground of malice has also been taken to show that he fell victim to the intrigue of his colleagues.

7. On the other hand Malik Azam Rasool, learned counsel of the respondents has submitted that Mr. S. K. Khanzada was fully competent to authenticate the order passed on behalf of the Governor as he was holding the charge of ex officio Secretary under Notification dated 23rd December, 1979 passed by the Governor of the Punjab. With regard to the malice so alleged by Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Cheema, it has been submitted that the document on the record so produced by him, do not connect the competent authority with any such act. He vehemently argued that the appeal be dismissed as the action is protected under Article 13 of the P. C. O., 1981.

8. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced by the parties. We first of all attend to the impugned orders, as to find whether the same are correctly passed are not. In this connection we rely upon R‑I minutes of the secret meeting of the Provincial Review Committee headed by the Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore which took place on Thursday, the 6th December, 1979 and find that Mr. Hassan Ali Qureshi, Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Forestry and Wildlife Department who had earlier recommended the retention of the appellant, was also Member of this Review Committee and has changed his view and was party to the ultimate proceedings in review in which he recom mended the retirement of the appellants. 1n view of the above, the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants that as the competent authority had earlier recommended their case for retention, therefore their retirement at a later stage would not be justified, stands repelled. The fact of the matter is that as the recommendation of this committee was approved by the Governor of the Punjab therefore, on the basis of the above order of the Governor, Mr. S. K. Khanzada notified the impugned orders.

9. In view of above it has been proved on the record that the orders were passed by the competent authority who is Governor in these cases and the Notification was issued in the name of Governor by Mr. S. K. Khanzada who was also holding the charge of ex officio Secretary under the order of the said authority. In this manner the arguments of the learned counsel loosen its all force that Mr. S. K. Kbanzada has passed the order, which he was not competent to do so.

10. Similarly the document on record have been perused by us which do not connect either the competent authority that is the Governor or Mr. S. K. Khanzada who had authenticated the retirement order so passed against the appellants. 11. 1n view of above analysis of the entire facts of these cases as well as the legal issue involved we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be assailed as the order in these cases has been passed by a competent authority, without any malice.

12. Result is the appeals are dismissed as the impugned orders are fully protected under Article 13 of the P. C. O., 1981. There will be no order as to costs. M. I. Appeal dismissed.