1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN). Appellant brought the present appeal against the impugned order No. 5, dated 31-7-1988 vide which his services were terminated and departmental appeal lodged by him was not decided by respondent No. 2 till the filing of the appeal. According to him he was appointed as a Junior Clerk in Buner Watershed Division on ad hoc basis vide order dated 7-10-1985 and his services were regularized later on, on 10-7-1986 by respondent No.

1. He was performing his duties efficiently and honestly when to his bad luck some complaints in the daily `Jiddat', Peshawar were published against respondent No. 1, who was under the impression that appellant had a hand in it and resultantly he proceeded against him on a false allegation of absence from duty, inefficiency and corruption in preparing a wrong T.A. Bill. His reply did not satisfy the respondents and an Authorised Officer was appointed in the case, who instead of following then procedure under the N.W.F.P. Efficiency and Discipline Rules. 1973 carried on with the enquiry himself but did not ask the appellant to cross-examine the. witnesses, if any and recommended the dismissal of the appellant from service. Respondents contested the claim and adhered to the proposition that appellant committed the misconduct for which he was proceeded against departmental, and was rightly removed from service in the shape of his termination. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have come to the conclusion that appellant instead of contesting the enquiry before the concerned officer submitted his resignation on 3-7-1988 from 3-8-1988 which was accepted by respondent No. 1 on 9-7-1988 with effect from 3-8-1988 so now the appellant cannot say that he had withdrawn his resignation later on and his case may be dealt with on the ground referred to above in the body of the petition. A Government employee who voluntarily submits his resignation on the grounds other than pressure, mala fides or fraud cannot later on come to the Court/Tribunal with the prayer that he was a victim of the circumstances and his resignation may not be accepted. An official cannot take this plea at such a belated stage and that too when no such averment was made by him in the petition before the Tribunal or in the resignation tendered by the appellant. This being the position, we have got no other alternative but to dismiss the present appeal. However, since the services of the appellant were terminated and this term is wide enough to include dismissal, removal from service or compulsory retirement, therefore, keeping in view the age of the appellant we treat it as removal from service so that he may join any other service or other independent profession if he so likes. With the above modification in the impugned order, the appeal fails which is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to hear their own costs and file be consigned to the record room. A.A./123/Sr. N Appeal dismissed.