1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

"Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (ii) of section 12 of the Punjab, I Assistant Commissioner /Collector, Sub -Division, Pasrur hereby direct in the public interest that Muhammad Riaz Khan, Patwari shall retire from service with immediate effect or with effect from the date of expiry of leave preparatory to retirement admissible to him if such leave is applied for by him within 15 days from the date of this order and the same is granted to him." The appellant filed appeal which too stood dismissed by respondent No. 2 on 6-10-1986, operative portion of which reads as under:-- "The service record of the petitioner, especially for the years 1970, 1971, 1972 is very bad. In the opinion of the Committee, it is not a fit case for reinstatement in service. The impugned order is upheld and the petition is hereby dismissed" Hence this appeal.

3. We have heard the arguments advanced by the parties and also perused the record of the case minutely with the assistance of the departmental representatives.

4. During the course of the arguments learned counsel for the appellant raised the following points: (1) that the appellant has not completed 25 years of service on 31-7-1986. (2) that no show-cause notice was served upon the appellant. (3) that the service record of the appellant did not warrant his compulsory retirement;

5. On the other hand learned District Attorney has strongly repelled the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the impugned orders are fully justified and may be maintained.

6. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and find that as far as points No. l1) and No. (2) above, are concerned, there is no force in the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant joined the department on 13-10-1960 therefore he completed his 25 years service on 13-10-1985. Similarly the service of show-cause notice was not a mandatory provision prior to the amendment, which was made in the year 1987. While dealing with point No. 3, we find force in the contention so made by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is apparent from the material available on file of the appeal that the appellant was retired on the basis of unsatisfactory record of service and on the recommendations of the Committee constituted to review the cases of employees who had completed 25 years service qualifying for pension and other benefits. We have gone through the service record of the appellant vis-a-vis, the ACRs for the years 1970, 1971 and 1972, on the basis of which the appellant has been retired under section 12(ii) of the Act. Although the ACRs for the years 1970, 1971 and 1972 are blemished yet we find no supporting document by which the said adverse reports had been communicated to the appellant. The previous as well as subsequent record of the appellant till the date of his compulsory retirement, is blotless. All these mitigating circumstances lead me to the irresistible conclusion that it will be a sheer injustice to throw a man from peaceful service with a stigma of bad record. In the light of the above analysis of the case we are fully convinced that the impugned order of retirement under section 12(ii) of the Act passed by respondent No. 1 is not a justified order and cannot be maintained. We, therefore, proceed to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the appellant into service as he has never been retired. The period in between the compulsory retirement and reinstatement shall be treated as leave without pay. There will be no order as to costs. M.Y.H./346/Sr. P Appeal allowed.