1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents. ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).‑Khushi Muhammad, Head Constable (Rtd.) has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Superinten dent of Police, Sargodha and D. I.‑G. Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 1st April, 1982/8th August, 1982 and final order dated 23rd October, 1982 be set aside and the appellant be re‑instated w. e. f. 6th April, 1981 with full benefits of pay, allowances etc.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant submitted an application, dated 20th February, 1980 for his retirement from service from 20th March, 1980 after the completion of 25 years of service. The said applica tion was neither considered, nor accepted and no order of retirement or proceeding on L. P. R. was passed on the said application. Instead of processing appellant's aforesaid application, the appellant was retired under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 in a normal way. Respondent No. 1 issued Order No. 8232‑33, dated 1st March, 1980 retiring the appellant from service under section 12 (ii). As a result of this retirement, the appellant was granted L. P. R. for a period of one year from 1st March, 1980 to 28th February, 1981 and accordingly the appellant proceeded on L. P. R. from 1st March, 1980. The appellant submitted review petition against the aforesaid order of his retirement which was accepted and the appellant was re‑instated in service w. e. f. 18th June, 1980 by the order of respondent No.

2. It was also ordered that the period spent out of duty would be treated as leave of kind due. This order of re‑instatement of the appellant was duly implemented and the appellant continued working upto April, 1981. After the appellant had been re‑instated in service, his old application which was defunct and had not been acted upon by the Department was taken up again without his consent and the appellant was given L. P. R. from 6th April, 1981 to 5th April, 1982. The appellant made a representation to respondent No. 2 against these illegal orders. Instead of deciding the case himself, the respondent No. 2, directed the respondent No. 1 to decide the appellant's case. Consequently the appellant was summoned by respondent No. 1 for personal hearing, on 21st August, 1982 and appellant's representation was rejected by him, vide his order, dated 23rd October, 1982. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had applied for retirement from 20th March, 1980 through his application, dated 20th February, 1980 after completion of 25 years qualifying service. It was not considered and acted upon but instead the appellant was retired under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 from 1st March, 1980 by respondent No.

1. This retirement was ordered by respondent No. 1 at his own after considering the case of the appellant who completed 25 years of qualifying service. On this, tile appellant made a review petition to respondent No. 2, who accepted the same and re‑instated the appellant in service. The appellant continued as such for about 10 months. It was a shock and surprise for the appellant when he was again ordered to go on L. P. R. on the basis of his old application which was not acted upon, dropped and abandoned by the respondent No. 1, who himself chose earlier to retire the appellant under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, that aggrieved of his retirement made by respondent No. 1, the appellant filed a review petition to respondent No. 2 which was duly accepted and the appellant was re‑instated. This fact further confirms that this tantamounted to withdrawal of his earlier application asking for retirement from 20th March, 1980 as review petition of the appellant against his retirement was accepted and he was re‑instated on 18th June, 1980 by respondent No.

2. It was concluded by the learned counsel for the appellant that agitating and deciding the issue again, by the respon dent No. 1 on appellant's earlier application which was not acted upon and dropped was uncalled for and unjustified. Thus sanctioning of L. P. R. from 6th April, 1981 to 5th April, 1982 and again retirement of the appel lant by respondent No. 1 was illegal.

5. The learned District Attorney has relied on the parawise com ments so submitted by the respondent No. 1 and could not successfully rebut the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.

6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record so attached with the appeal. It is clear that the appellant's application, dated 20th February, 1980 for retire ment from service from 20th March, 1980, after completion of 25 years of qualifying service was not acted upon. He was not allowed L. P. R. from 20th March, 1980 as requested by the appellant but on the other hand the appellant was retired from service under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 w. e. f. 1st March, 1980 and also L. P. R. was granted to him from 1st March, 1980 to 28th February, 1981. This makes abundantly clear that appellant's application was dropped, abandoned and instead the appellant was retired by respondent No.1 'at his own. The appellant submitted a review petition against these orders which was accepted by respondent No. 2 i. e. Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha, vide his order, dated 18th June, 1980 who re‑instated the appellant on 18th June, 1980. He continued on duty as such uptil 5th April, 1982 when respondent No. 1 again sanctioned him L. P. R. from 6th April, 1981. This was done by him on consideration of his old application, dated 20th February, 1980 as is clear from the para wise comments submitted by him on the appeal of the appellant (refer para. 6). This action of respondent No. 1 was uncalled for, unjustified and unlawful as the application, dated 20th February, 1980 had become defunct as he himself had not acted upon this application; abandoned it and had retired the appellant under section 12 , (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 at his own from 1st March, 1980. This order of retire ment was also set aside by respondent No. 2 on acceptance of the review petition of the appellant on much later date f. e. on 18th June, 1980 and appellant joined duty again from this date and continued working till 5t April, 1981 when respondent No. 1 arbitrarily and illegally sanctioned him L. P. R. again from 6th April, 1981.

7. Keeping the above analysis in view, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeal of the appellant is accepted. He is directed to be re‑instated in service w. e. f. 6th April, 1981 with all back benefits. There will be no order as to costs. A. E. Appeal accepted.