1969 PLP 966 (SCMR)

r. 4(i) proviso‑Proviso not ultra vires Previous scrutiny of case of a person in 1959 under Public Conduct (Scrutiny) Rules‑No bar to examination of case for compulsory retirement on completion of 26 years service, under proviso to sub‑rule (1) of rule 4 of Nest Pakistan Railway Servants (Further Usefulness in Public Service) Rules, 1964. Munir Ahmad, Advocate' Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 11th October 1967. FAZLE‑AKBAR, J.‑Special leave to appeal is sought by Qamar‑ud‑Din Siddiqui against the judgment and order of a 'Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan dismissing a writ ‑petition which he had filed challenging the orders of the authorities concerned compulsorily retiring him from the Railway service. He joined the Railway, service in July 1938. On 26‑9‑64, when he was officiating as Assistant Mechanical Engineer, he was asked to appear before a Committee to show cause why he should not be retired from service under the West Pakistan Railway Servants (Further Usefulness in Public Service) Rules, 1964. The Committee after hearing him recommended his retirement from service with effect from 12‑12‑

64. The delegates (the Chairman and Member, Traffic) accepted the said recommendation and issued orders for his retirement from service. His appeal against the said orders was dismissed on 2‑2‑

65. He then moved a writ petition in the High Court challenging the above orders on the ground that as he had completed 25 years' service on 21st July :1963, his case was not covered by rule 4(i) of the West Pakistan Railway Servants (Further Usefulness in Public Service) Rules, 1964. In view of the clear words in the proviso to the said rule the learned Judges of the High Court were unable to accept this contention. They also overruled the contention that the said pro viso was in excess of the power of the Governor of West Pakistan who framed these rules in exercise of the powers conferred on him by clause (2) of Art. 178 of the Constitution. An argument was also raised before the High Court that as his case had already been reviewed in 1959, proviso to rule 4(i) would not be attracted to his case. The learned Judges have rightly pointed out that "The scrutiny of the case of the petitioner in 1959 under the Public Conduct (Scrutiny) Rules read with the Public Conduct (Scrutiny) Ordinance in no way debarred the examination of the case of the petitioner for compulsory retirement on completion of 26 years of service under the proviso to sub‑rule (i) of rule 4 of the Rules of 1964". We have ourselves examined the relevant rules with the assistance of the learned counsel and see no reason to take a view different from that of the High Court. We, therefore, see no ground for interference in this case and accordingly dismiss this petition. Leave refused.