1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing. 17th December, 1995. MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J: ‑‑The Secretary to Government of Punjab, Health Department, Lahore, through this petition seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 19‑2‑1995, of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby Service Appeal No. 679/1990 preferred by Miss Sarwar Jehan Haq respondent, against the order of her compulsory retirement, was allowed.

2. Miss Sarwar Jehan Haq respondent, while serving as Nursing Superintendent, D.H.O. Hospital, Sheikhupura, was compulsorily retired from service on 20‑6‑1986 under section 12(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).‑She challenged the aforesaid order in appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, which was disposed of vide order dated 10‑12‑1989, with direction to the Departmental authority to dispose of .her appeal reportedly awaiting decision.

3. The respondent received a letter dated 28‑8‑1990 to the effect that her appeal was rejected. She assailed the aforesaid order in appeal before the Service Tribunal, which was allowed Vide impugned judgment referred to above,

4. Mr. Abdullah Yousuf Warraich, the Assistant Advocate‑General, contended that the evaluation of the service record of the respondent proved that she had outlived her utility in service. The order of her compulsory retirement from service passed by the competent Authority in public interest was subject to no exception. Learned counsel half‑heartedly submitted that the appeal before the Service. Tribunal filed by the respondent was beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

5. Undoubtedly the respondent had served for a long tenure of 36 years, and only in the first half year of 1966 and in the year 1979 she reportedly earned adverse remarks, but the same were not communicated to her. The learned Service Tribunal dealt with this aspect of the case in detail in para. 6 of the impugned judgment, relevant to the extent is reproduced hereunder:‑‑ "The appellant's assertion that she maintained an unblemished record was amply correct as it could not be demonstrated if she was at all conveyed any adverse remarks throughout her 36 years' long tenure. The learned D.A. did point out that she had earned adverse remarks during the first‑half of 1966 and the entire year 1979, but could not establish from the record if those adverse entries were formally communicated to her. It is a long received rule that adverse entries if not communicated, could not be treated to be adverse. This was how the 2 A.C.Rs. containing adverse remarks against her, were rendered ineffective and the assumption would be that her record including those two years, was free from blemish. Section 12 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 visualises action thereunder ' in public interest'. Indeed the order dated‑30‑6‑1986 whereby the appellant was retired the provision of the old section 12 was not tenable because that section was held to be un‑Islamic. Even otherwise the expression ' in public interest' did not mean unbridled powers conferred on the department in the matter of retiring a civil servant. Rather the expression had some objectivity. There had to be some reason and conversely if there was no reason, the order would not be sustainable. Here because of the appellant's good/satisfactory record throughout, no material .was available to use as lever against her for the purposes of compulsorily retiring her before time. " So far as the other contention that the appeal filed before the Service Tribunal was beyond the prescribed period of limitation is concerned; suffice it to observe that the only order communicated to the respondent was through letter dated 28‑8‑1990, against which she preferred appeal on 24‑9‑1990, which I was within time. The objection pertaining to limitation, therefore, had no substance.

6. The upshot of the above discussion is that both the contentions raised by learned counsel for petitioner are without merit. The appeal passed by the learned Service Tribunal in reinstating the respondent with effect from 30‑6‑1986 until she attained the age of her superannuation being valid, is maintained and this petition dismissed.

7. Before parting with this case; we cannot help, observing that the officers, who were charged with the duty of recommending the respondent's retirement under section 12(2) of the Act to the Competent Authority, had acted without care. In reply to para. 3 of the parawise comments submitted to the appeal before the Service Tribunal, it was admitted by the departmental authority that the respondent had brilliant career; that she had received education of teaching an administrative course at the College of Nursing School, Karachi; served as Tutor Sister Midwifery at Public School Quetta, for 21 years; served as Tutor Sister Midwifery in the Service Hospital, Lahore; served as Nursing Superintendent in Lady Aitchison Hospital, Lahore; and, lastly served as Nursing Superintendent in D.H.Q. Hospital, Sheikhupura. Neither the precise adverse remarks for the period in question were disclosed nor the same were conveyed to her. With brilliant service record extending over three decades to her credit, the action under section 12(2) of the Act was absolutely not warranted under the law. We, therefore, direct that an action under intimation to the Registrar of this Court be taken by the Competent Authority against the officers, (if they are still in service), responsible for such a wanton action, whereby she was deprived to serve for a period of about 6 years for no justifiable reason. We also leave the respondent to take any action permissible under the law against those officers. It is strange that even the Government of the Punjab in Health Department, in the circumstances of the instant case, opted to challenge the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, where the grievance of the respondent was somewhat redressed. A.A./S‑1021/S Leave refused.