1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

3. As the facts and law points involved in both these appeals are identical in nature, I will decide these appeals with this single judgment.

4. Brief facts of the case are as under:‑ ABDUL HAKEEM: That the appellant was initially appointed in 1957 as Patwari in Kotla Eisan district D.G. Khan and was removed from service vide order, dated 20‑8‑1973, passed by the District Collector, D.G. Khan. He filed appeal before the learned Commissioner, which was also rejected. He further went in appeal before the Service Tribunal which also met the same fate. On 27‑12‑1978, he moved an application to the Minister for Revenue, which was duly recommended but the same was not entertained as it was found that the order of the Minister was recommendatory in nature and not imperative. On 6‑6‑1979, he once again filed an application for his appointment as Patwari before the Deputy Commissioner, D.G. Khan. Accordingly he was appointed and was granted seniority vide order, dated 27‑6‑1979 and confirmed on 7‑8‑1980. During the course of inspection conducted by the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector on 9‑7‑1981, it was found that his second appointment was due to certain concealment of facts, therefore, he directed the Assistant Commissioner to enquire into the said matter. The Assistant Commissioner vide his order, dated 16‑11‑1983, ordered him to leave the charge because his re‑appointment was illegal. He filed appeal against the said removal from service before the Commissioner which was dismissed on 29‑3‑1984. Hence this appeal. BASHIR AHMAD: He was enlisted as Patwari in 1957 in Tehsil Rajanpur and was removed from service by the Collector by his order, dated 10‑10‑1961. He made an application to the Minister by which he made a request that he may be recruited as Patwari, which was recommended. However, by order, dated 4‑7‑1981, his name was enlisted as Patwari and was subsequently appointed as such. During the course of inspection by the District Collector, it came to the notice of the Collector that his appointment was illegal. He directed the Assistant Collector to hold enquiry who after doing so asked the appellant to leave the charge by order, dated 16‑11‑1983. Aggrieved against the said order he filed appeal before the Commissioner, D.G. Khan Division, who dismissed the same on 29‑3‑1984. Hence this appeal.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that it would be misconceived to say that the appellants were dismissed from service, therefore, they could not seek employment on account of their said dismissal. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the order by which the appellants suffered loss of their services, clearly shows that they were removed from service although in case of Abdul Hakeem in Urdu order the word "ﻑﺮﻃﺭﺒ" has been used whereas in Bashir Ahmad's case it has been stated that his name be struck of. In this respect it has been argued that the appellants were fully entitled to seek fresh appointment after their removal from service.

7. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments of the Department and fully contested that the impugned orders were justified and may be maintained.

8. I have seen the applications submitted by these two appellants for purpose of fresh appointments and find that the fact of their earlier removal has not been concealed. It is also on record that in case of Abdul Hakeem, he was conferred with the seniority as well as was confirmed in service by the Collector who was the competent authority to do so. However, the case of Bashir Ahmad is simply a case of employment once again on his application so made by him without concealing earlier facts of the case. In view of these established facts on record the impugned orders would be misconceived as its strength hinges on the observation that the appellant had re‑entered in service' by concealing their earlier dismissal from service and thus, they have nowhere cheated the Department by entering through the back doors. It is a settled principle of law that .a person whose name is struck of from the list of civil servants (Patwari) or is removed from service, is fully entitled to seek service, as there is no bar against the same. At this stage learned District Attorney has come out with an argument that both these appellants were employed when they were over age and thus they could not be enlisted without relaxation of age under the rules. I am afraid I will not take into consideration this plea of the learned District Attorney, which does not find existence in the comments submitted by the Department nor were ever taken at the time when they were asked to leave the service by the Assistant Commissioner. The sole ground for their removal from service with the Assistant Commissioner is that they had concealed the facts of their earlier services that they were dismissed and that is why they left the services as undesirable person. This stand taken by the learned District Attorney is repelled.

9. As the salient point of this case has been mentioned in the earlier part of my judgment which clearly proves that the appellants did not conceal their earlier antecedent and they were never a dismissed Government servants, I have no hesitation to hold that they can seek service once again. However, if there were any misunderstanding it was in the mind of the Department and the appellant had no hands in creating the same. It would be also pertinent to observe at this juncture that the rules of locus poenitentiae and animus revertendi could also prevail in this case, as the appellants were initiated into service once again and had been serving without any complaint or misconduct on their part. It would not be possible for the respondents to take away the vested right so once created in their favour.

10. The result is I set aside the impugned order as illegal, without lawful authority arid against the principle of locus poenitentiae and animus revertendi following the fundamental principle of justice. The appeals are accepted accordingly. The appellants are re‑instated in service forthwith with all back benefits. However, there will be no order as to costs. A. E. Appeals accepted.