2004 PLP 1015 (SCMR)

SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.

This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), dated 18-2-2003, passed in Appeal No. 2659 of 2002.

2. Pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings initiated under section 12(1) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, on the charges of inefficiency, corruption and misconduct, the competent authority retired the appellant in the public interest. After exhausting .the departmental remedies the appellant approached the learned Tribunal by filing appeal, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment herein.

3. Mr. Akhtar Masood Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the appellant, inter alia, contended that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is not sustainable because it is the result of misreading and non-reading of the evidence; that the appellant was discriminated by the Tribunal, inasmuch as identical appeals, bearing Nos.2849 to 2851 of 2002, were accepted by the Tribunal and the orders of compulsory retirement were set aside. He further pointed out that Show Cause Notices were issued to 30 D.S.Ps. in November, 2001 regarding their proposed retirement from service under section 12(i) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act of 1974, wherein allegations against all the D.S.Ps. were the same, as being inefficient, reportedly corrupt and guilty of misconduct and action was taken against them on the basis of some secret reports received from some agencies; whereas 12 out of them were taken into service under the orders of Chief Secretary/respondent No. 1 that the case of the present appellant is very much identical to the case of to D.S.Ps. whose appeals were allowed by the Tribunal and others who were reinstated by respondent No. 1.

4. On 9-3-2004 this Court directed the Chief Secretary, Punjab, to submit his report in the, light of the objections /contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant.

5. Respondent No.1 through A.A.G. Punjab submitted his report vide C.M.A. No. 635 of 2004, wherein the contentions/objections raised on behalf of the appellant are not vehemently denied but admitted to be correct. However, it is mentioned in the report "as far as the case of Mr. Abdul Jalil is concerned no discrimination was done on part of the then Chief Secretary. If Mr. Abdul Jalil had waited for the decision of the representation before the then Chief Secretary, his case too would have been decided on merit based on the contents of the representation, comments of the department, arguments the appellant would have been given at the time of personal hearing and the record/material placed on file."

6. In view of the report of the Chief Secretary and admitted facts, the learned Law Officer appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 raised no objection to the acceptance of the appeal.

7. Accordingly, by consent we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal and remand the case to the Chief Secretary Punjab; with the direction to decide the representation/ appeal of the appellant already pending before him, keeping in view his earlier report and without being influenced by the observations of the learned Tribunal in its judgment, within a period of four (4) weeks purely on merits. S.A.K./A-46/S Case remanded.