Retirement from Service

Punjab Civil Servants (Directory Retirement from Service) Rules, 2021 ('the Rules, 2021') were introduced through Notification No. SOR-I(S&GAD)4-11/2020 dated 16.02.2021

As per the general rules of interpretation, the Rules, 2021 would have a prospective effect for the reason that no express provision to the contrary is available therein

Consequently, the cases already pending and decided before enactment of the Rules, 2021 would remain unaffected by the new legislation

Statutes, notifications, executive and administrative orders operate prospectively unless retrospective operation was expressly provided therein

Notification which is duly published in the official gazette takes effect from the date on which it is published except if otherwise is provided in the notification itself

Disciplinary proceedings once initiated against a civil servant under a specific law shall be culminated under the same law that and not under the law that came into existence on the same subject subsequently.

Argument of appellant (retired Judicial Officer) was that he had not secured twenty years of service and infact his judicial service was 16 years, 04 months 21 days, therefore, his retirement within contemplation of S. 12 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, could not have been made

Validity

Before entering into judicial service, the appellant had more than seven years' service at his credit in Federal Investigation Agency (F.I.A.), therefore, as per Rule 2.1 of the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules, 1955, the said period of service shall be added into twenty years of qualifying service for pension as contemplated under S. 12(i) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Appellants /Ex-Judicial Officers assailed vires of the show-cause notices and subsequent notification issued by the respondent / Registrar, High Court, whereby they were retired from service in terms of S. 12 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974

Validity

In the present cases, proper show cause notices with reference to applicable provisions of law with full detail of allegations, pending complaints and remarks in PERs, were served upon the appellants to which they furnished their respective written replies

Element of public interest had also been rightly evaluated by the competent authority keeping in view the service record of appellants and nothing contrary had been presented before the Tribunal

Order of retirement had been passed after due process of law and fulfilling the pre-requisites to invoke S. 12 of the Act, 1974

Record revealed that all the appellants had completed the requisite twenty years' service

Ordinarily, Tribunal or Court is not supposed to substitute reasons for public interest and order under S. 12 is not interfered with as satisfaction of the competent authority regarding efficiency and performance of an employee is not to be substituted by the Court or Tribunal with its own opinion on the basis of analysis of the record

Justifiability of S.12 is restricted to the fulfillment of necessary conditions contained therein

Appeals were dismissed, in circumstances.

Said expression implies a matter relating to the people at large, nation or a community as a whole and if the interest of general public or community is not involved in a matter, it cannot be brought within the purview of public interest

Requirement of public interest may vary from case to case, however, an order passed by the competent authority under S. 12(1)(i) of the Act, 1974 must have reasonable nexus with the public interest

Assessment of the performance of a civil servant to judge his suitability must not be based on personal reasons or considerations not related to public interest.

Petitioner assailed order passed by respondent whereby his retirement order was recalled with the direction to rejoin his official duty in terms of amendment made in S.12 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, through the Punjab Civil Servants (Amendment) Act, 2021

Validity

Retirement order of the petitioner had been issued prior to promulgation of the Punjab Civil Servants (Amendment) Act, 2021

Punjab Civil Servants (Amendment) Act, 2021, did not apply retrospectively to the case of the petitioner

When the Legislature through an enactment altered the rights of parties by taking away or conferring any right of action, such amendment did not affect pending actions, unless provided in express terms within the enactment

General rule of common law was that the statute changing the law ought not to affect past events, unless the intention appeared with reasonable certainty to be understood as applying to facts or events that had already occurred in such a way so as to confer or impose or otherwise effect rights or liabilities which the law had defined with reference to the past events

Constitutional petition was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.

Petitioner sought direction to the District Accounts Officer for preparing her pension papers and a declaration that amendment made in S. 12 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, was ultra vires the Constitution

Validity

Petitioner had voluntarily retired from service after completing 25 years of qualifying service

Legislature brought an amendment in S. 12 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, according to which voluntary retirement was subject to fulfillment of condition of 25 years of service or 55 years of age, which ever was later

Retirement order was issued on 24-08-2021 while firstly, the Punjab Civil Servants (Amendment) Ordinance, 2021, was promulgated on 03-05-2021 and had been extended before its expiry period i.e. 90 days without any break till promulgation of the Punjab Civil Servants (Amendment) Act, 2021, on 29-10-2021

Constitutional petition, having no merit, was dismissed.

Contention of respondent-Bank was that no order for reinstatement could be passed at the initial stage of grievance petition

Validity

Matter between the parties was still subjudice before National Industrial Relations Commission and jurisdiction to entertain the grievance petition was yet to be decided

Order to suspend the operation of retirement letter was not called for, in circumstances

Impugned order had been passed during pendency of grievance petition

National Industrial Relations Commission was directed to decide the matter within a period of thirty days in accordance with law

High Court directed that no coercive action should be taken in the meanwhile against the Bank

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Petitioner initially was removed from service on account of misconduct, but said removal order was set aside in appeal and the petitioner was reinstated in service

Subsequently de novo inquiry was conducted against the, petitioner and competent authority while taking lenient view retired the petitioner from service with immediate effect

Authority, however not only failed to determine pay of the petitioner, but also failed to process, finalize and release the pension funding to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had made manipulation in his date of birth

Petitioner was served with the charge-sheet alleging. therein about the manipulation of date of birth, but he was exonerated from said charge by the Investigating Officer as no said allegation was proved against the petitioner

Authority, without any inquiry or providing opportunity of hearing, could not deprive the petitioner from his right of pension funding benefit just on the allegation about manipulation in his date of birth

Authority, in circumstances, was directed to process, finalize and release pension after fixing pay in accordance with order passed by the department.

Such guidelines would not be followed in a mechanical manner, but would be used to scrutinize entire service record of civil servant and to arrive at a reasonable conclusion

Total performance of civil servant would be kept in view and penalties, if any, would be weighed against his overall performance

Lapses of civil servant in nature of human error could not be allowed to overweigh his overall performance.

Said Board having declared appellant completely and permanently incapacitated for further service, was retired from service

On filing constitutional petition by appellant, Authority was directed by High Court to get appellant medically examined by a Board of Doctors of Combined Military Hospital (C.M.H.)

Said Board after examination, declared appellant medically fit

Appellant on basis of said report, made representation for his reinstatement, but as Chief Medical Officer of Pakistan Railway having failed to submit his report in the light of findings of the Board of the Doctors of C.M.H., High Court issued a direction to the Divisional Medical Officer, Pakistan Railway to ensure submission of report by Chief Medical Officer

In response to direction of High Court, instead of submitting report by Chief Medical Officer, Director Health and Medical Services disposed of application of appellant for his reinstatement relying on report of Psychiatrist of Pakistan Railways

Director who was not Chief Medical Officer, had not given his independent opinion and also had not considered report of Board of Doctors of C. M. H. which had declared appellant medically fit

Director did not apply his own mind and did not even examine appellant himself-Director had not given any reason for rejecting the report submitted by Board of Doctors of C.M.H.

Directions of High Court given in Constitutional petition filed by appellant, in circumstances were not implemented in letter and spirit

Incumbent upon Chief Medical Officer of Pakistan Railways to give his opinion after taking into consideration the report of Board of Doctors of C.M.H.

Appeal by appellant was accepted to the extent that Authority was directed to ensure the implementation of direction issued by High Court in Constitutional petition filed by appellant

Appellant would be examined medically by Chief Medical Officer himself and he would consider the report of Doctors of C.M.H. in which appellant was found fit for service.

Leave to appeal granted to consider contentions (which involved substantial and legal questions requiring further examination and authoritative pronouncement)- That order passed by President under S.13(ii) of Act (LXXI of 1973) could not have been set aside by Punjab Service Tribunal in view of bar under Article 13 of Provisional Constitution Order, 1981; that appeal being hopelessly barred delay could not in circumstances, be condoned; and respondent having secured lateral entry in Foreign Affairs Group was to be governed by terms and conditions applicable to Federal Government Servants.

Ouster of jurisdiction-Order of retirement challenged on grounds of mala fide and non-completion of 25 years' service qualifying for pension

Tribunal coming to conclusion that service rendered by petitioner exceeded 25 years qualifying for pension and mala fides on part of Government Department was not established, Held, that order of retirement could not be held to be without jurisdiction and that in view of ouster of jurisdiction, Service Tribunal did not have power to examine question of retirement of a person by a competent authority after 25 years' service

impugned order not being open to interference, leave to appeal refused.

Art. 212(3) read with Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)Retirement from service-Leave to appeal - Granted to Provincial Government to consider contention that civil servant's request for retirement having been already accepted his subsequent withdrawal of such request was of no consequence.