2004 PLC (C (PLP)

JAVED IQBAL, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks review of the judgment of this Court dated 3‑10‑2000 whereby petition preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed and judgment dated 1‑3‑2000 passed by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, has been kept intact.

2. Mr. M. Bilal, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court, who entered appearance on behalf of petitioner has altogether portraited a new case by arguing that no notice was served upon the petitioner, therefore, no proceeding could be initiated pursuant to Rule 1.8(a) of the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Pension Rules"). It was never argued before the Service Tribunal that service of the notice was not effected upon the petitioner. We have carefully examined the following authorities wherein provisions as contemplated in Rule 1.8 of the Pension Rules have been examined:‑‑ "Muhammad Said Khan v. Government of West Pakistan PLD 1969 Pesh. 147; Sultan Muhammad Naeem Khan v. Chief Secretary to Government of West Pakistan PLD 1969 Pesh.237; Government of N.‑W.F.P. v. Muhammad Said Khan PLD 1973 SC 514; Province of Punjab v. Syed Munir Hussain Shah 1998 SCMR 1326; Malik Ehsanul Haq v. Government of the Punjab 1994 PLC (C.S.) 454; Muhammad Hafeezur Rehman Hashmi v. Secretary, Finance Department 1988 PLC (C.S.) 245; Farooq Ahmed Khan v. Government of Punjab 1996 PLC (C.S.) 817; Syed Munir Hussain Shah v. Secretary, Livestock, Government of Punjab 1995 PLC (C.S.) 943; Abdul Aziz Virk v. Secretary, Education (Schools) 2001 PLC (C.S.) 661."

3. The case of petitioner has been‑ examined on the touchstone of criterion as laid down in the abovementioned judgments. After having gone through the dictum laid down in the abovementioned authorities, we are of the view that proceedings against the pensioner shall he instituted within one year The original record was summoned to examine as to whether proceedings against the petitioner were instituted within the period of one year from his retirement or otherwise? The record is demonstrative of the fact that petitioner was retired on 7‑9‑1996 while the charge‑sheet was issued on 7‑2‑1997 which is within period of one year. There is no denying the fact that proceedings were instituted within the stipulated time i.e. one year as provided in Rule 1.8(b) of the Pension Rules must not be lost sight of that Rule 1.8(b) of the Pension Rules speaks about institution of proceedings which means "commencement" or "initiation" of proceedings and has got no concern with the service of notice upon the petitioner. The only mandatory prerequisite as embodied in Rule 1.8(a) of the Pension Rules seems to be that fair opportunity of hearing must .be afforded which has been provided It has been observed in the judgment impugned that "further, a regular inquiry was held into the charges against the petitioners and after receipt of the inquiry report from the Director, Excise and Taxation, Multan Division Multan the imposition of major penalty was gone ahead by the respondent‑Department after observing the procedure under the "Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975." It was further observed in the judgment impugned that "here, the grant of full opportunity to the petitioners to controvert the charges against them and affording them of personal hearing by the Authority before the imposition of major penalty, do lead to the inference that there is nothing amiss in the impugned judgment". It was also observed in the judgment impugned that as regards the plea being raised on behalf of petitioner Syed Shaukat Iqbal, E.T.O. (Retired), we suffice by observing that he was charge‑sheeted within one year of his retirement and in that view of the matter the Tribunal was within the four corners of its jurisdiction to hold that no illegality whatsoever was committed in his case either".

4. All the points raised at the time of arguing the petitions were dilated upon, discussed and decided in a comprehensive manner.

5. It is well‑settled by now that "a review petition is not competent where neither any new and important matter or evidence has been discovered nor is any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Such error may be an error of fact or of law but it must be self‑evident and. floating on surface and not requiring any elaborate discussion or process of ratiocination". Master Tahilram v. Lilaram 1970 SCMR 622, Abdul Khahq Qureshi v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner 1968 SCMR 800, Rehmatullah v. Abdul Majid 1968 SCMR 838, Hassan Din v. Claim Commissioner, Lahore 1968 SCMR 1047(2), Qamar Din v. Maula Bakhsh 1968 SCMR 1042(1), Muhammad Akram v. State 1970 SCMR 418 and Nawab Bibi v. Hamida Begum 1968 SCMR

104. There is no cavil with the proposition that "if judgment or finding, although suffering from an erroneous assumption of facts, is sustainable on other grounds available on record, review is not justifiable notwithstanding error being apparent on the face of the record. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. State 1979 SCMR 427.

6. In sequel to abovementioned discussion, the review petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. M.B.A./S‑35/S Petition dismissed.