2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 9‑12‑2002 dismissing the appellant from service, under Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000. After having exhausted departmental remedy present appeal has been filed in this Tribunal.

2. As per facts relevant to the present appeal, the appellant, who is Ex‑Pool Officer of "Metropolitan Corporation Lahore" (as person in corporation service as defined under RSO) was served with a charge- sheet dated 14‑9‑2002 containing the allegations that the appellant was actively engaged in receiving illegal gratifications from drivers in Transport Pool, he was inefficient and corrupt and was also involved in other activities as Pool Officer of former Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore. The appellant denied the allegations stating that as he had been an office bearer of the Workers Federation of Metropolitan Corporation Lahore, complaint against him was filed by interested persons on political grounds. Subsequently, order was passed on 9‑12‑2002 dismissing the appellant from service. The appellant filed departmental appeal on 9‑1‑2003 addressed to District Nazim in which he pointed out that he had retired and proceedings could not be held against him. He also pointed out that all allegations were vague and baseless. However, his departmental appeal was not decided within the statutory period and thereafter the appellant filed this appeal in this Tribunal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant states that allegations levelled against the appellant were totally baseless and non‑specific and that the appellant could only deny such allegations as there was no specific instance quoted in the charge‑sheet relating to his inefficiency or corruption. It is further stated that proceedings could not be held against the appellant once he had retired on reaching the age of superannuation. It is next stated that the appellant retired on 9‑9‑2002, whereas charge‑sheet was served on 14‑9‑2002 and impugned order was passed on 9‑12‑2002 three months after the retirement of the appellant. Learned counsel had relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as 1997 SCMR 343 in that connection. It is maintained that when the appellant had ceased to be in Corporation service, the provision of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000, could not be applicable and the appellant could not be proceeded against being no more in the employment of the Corporation.

4. The appeal is opposed by the respondents. It is maintained that inquiry was started against the appellant before he had attained the age of superannuation and, therefore, his dismissal from service was justified. It is also stated that the appellant was a notorious person and he had been indulging in gross irregularities during his service as Pool Officer. It is also stated on behalf of the respondents that dismissal order was passed by the competent authority after completion of all legal formalities and the same was sustainable under the law.

5. I have considered contentions from both sides and also perused the relevant record. I agree, with the respondents to the extent that allegations against the appellant were very serious and an inquiry was also held according to which the allegations were proved against the appellant. However, the appellant reached the age of superannuation and retired from Corporation service when charge‑sheet was served and when impugned orders were passed dismissing the appellant from service. I find that a retired civil servant or retired employee of Corporation could not be dismissed as he was already out of service. The Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000 applies to existing personnel in Government and Corporation service, as per section 1 of the said Ordinance which reads. "It shall apply to persons in Govt. service and Corporation service". It is nowhere indicated in this Ordinance that its provisions shall also be applicable to those who had ceased to be in Govt. service and in Corporation service. Therefore, considering this legal position, appeal is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside. However, the authority is at liberty to proceed against the appellant under its Pension Rules (i.e. rule corresponding to rule 1.8 of Provincial Government Civil Servants Pension Rules) in which the authority may have the powers to withhold or withdraw a pension or any part of it depending on the guilt and misconduct of the person during or after the completion of his service. H.B.T./4/PST Appeal accepted.