2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑‑R. 6‑‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Ss.2‑A & 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art .212(3)‑‑‑Disciplinary proceedings‑‑‑Retirement of civil servant on attaining age of superannuation ‑‑‑Plea raised by the civil servant was that the Service Tribunal could not permit the authorities to proceed against him afresh after he had retired on attaining the age of superannuation ‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider whether after the normal retirement of an employee on attaining the age of superannuation ‑‑‑Authorities could be permitted to proceed afresh under disciplinary rules against him. State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram AIR 1970 SC 214 ref. Qazi Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Fateh Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. M. A. Zaidi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th June, 2002. RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.‑‑‑Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 10‑12‑2001 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to the Tribunal) partially accepting his service appeal against his compulsory retirement vide order dated 30‑6‑2000 converting it into normal retirement on attaining the age of superannuation, which was due on 20‑9‑2001. The Tribunal, however, ordered that intervening period between the date of compulsory retirement and the date of superannuation may be treated as leave of the kind due with further observation that there shall be no bar for the respondent‑Authority to proceed against the petitioner afresh in any manner in accordance with law and the rules.

2. It is, inter alia, contended that after retirement of the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation, respondents cannot initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner under The Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency & Disciplinary) Rules, 1978. Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment to the extent of the order whereby the Tribunal permitted the respondents to proceed against him afresh, which, on the face of it, appears to be unwarranted and against statutory provisions. Learned counsel states at the Bar that, after the decision of the Tribunal, respondents have issued a charge‑sheet dated 9/15‑2‑2002 to, the petitioner on the same cause of action, under which he was earlier proceeded, which action has been struck down by the Tribunal.

3. Submissions made do not seem to be without substance and we feel that the view expressed by the Tribunal suffers from serious infirmity and it being contrary to law cannot be sustained. In this regard we may refer to a case from Indian Supreme Court. In State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram (AIR 1970 Supreme Court 214), at paragraph No. 11, it was held that if disciplinary action is sought to be taken against a Government servant, it must be done before he retires. If a disciplinary enquiry cannot be concluded before the date of such retirement, the course open to the Government is to pass an order of suspension and refuse to permit the concerned public servant to retire and retain him in service till such enquiry is completed and a final order is passed therein.

4. Since an important question of law of general public importance has been raised in this petition and perhaps there is no specific judgment of this Court on the subject, leave to appeal is granted to consider whether, after the normal retirement‑of an employee, on attaining the age of superannuation, respondents can be permitted to proceed afresh under the disciplinary rules?

5. Interim order dated 14‑3‑2002 shall continue to remain inforce till disposal of the appeal. Q.M.H./A-251/S Leave granted