1983 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents. ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).‑Atta Ullah, ex‑Patwari, Chak Chaudhry, Tehsil and District Gujranwala, has made this appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, wherein he has impleaded the Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala and Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Gujranwala, as respondents.

2. This appeal is still at the stage of preliminary hearing.

3. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the orders of the respondents dated 27‑9‑1982 as well as 12‑121982, be set aside and he be re‑instated in service with all benefits.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Atta Ullah, ex‑Patwari, was retired from service under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Saddar Sub‑Division Gujranwala, vide his order dated 27‑9‑1982. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala, which was rejected vide his order dated 12‑12‑1982. Hence this appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at the stage of preliminary hearing. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that despite excellent service record, he has been retired from service under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, whereas his colleagues having unsatisfactory record of service, have been allowed to continue in service. Thus, the appellant has been treated quite indiscriminately and his retirement from service is not only uncalled for but also unjust.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that this appeal is not competent in view of the bar contained in Article 13 of the Provisional Constitution Order, particularly when no malice has been attributed with the competent authority.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and have also perused the record of the case. The appellant has nowhere attributed malice or ulterior motives with the competent authority. Admittedly he has completed more than 25 years qualifying service for pension and other retirement benefits. We do not see any merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. The competent' authority is fully empowered to scrutinize the cases under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, at any time on the completion of 25 years' service of any civil servant in the public interest. Since Article 13 of A the P. C. O. has clearly laid down that the appeal against bona fide order under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, would not be competent on any ground whatsoever, we hold that there are no merits in this appeal. .

8. In view of the above analysis of the case, we dismiss the appeal in limine, with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.