Raja MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB
The appellant, previously serving as a Section Officer in the Punjab Civil Secretariat, was appointed as an Extra Assistant Commissioner (E.A.C.) in the P.C.S. (Executive Branch) in relaxation of rules as a direct recruit. He accepted express conditions including surrendering prior service seniority. Subsequently, the Governor of the Punjab issued a notification reverting the appellant to his previous post of Section Officer. The Punjab Service Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal on the ground that he was on probation and could have been terminated without notice. The Supreme Court reviewed the record and found that the original appointment was lawfully made by a competent authority in relaxation of rules. The Court held that the subsequent reversion was merely a recall of the earlier valid appointment order based on an erroneous assumption that it should not have been made. Applying the principles of *locus poenitentiae* and *animus revertendi*, the Court held that once an order is acted upon and conditions fulfilled, the authority cannot recall it. The appeal was allowed, and the reversion order declared unlawful.
- Can a competent authority recall a validly issued appointment order after the appointee has accepted its terms and fulfilled the underlying conditions?
- Does the principle of locus poenitentiae prevent the government from reverting a civil servant whose appointment was lawfully made in relaxation of rules?
- Can a probationer's reversion be justified as a recall of an appointment order on the assumption that the original appointment should not have been made?
- Section 10, Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974
- Rule 8, P.C.S. (Executive Branch) Rules 1964
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-Leaving aside the unnecessary details it will be sufficient for the purpose of the present judgment to state that the petitioner who was working as a Section Officer in the Punjab Civil Secretariat was offered a post of an E. A. C. In P. C. S. (Executive Branch) by a letter dated 27-1-1975 which reads as follows :- "Reference your representation dated the 20th October. 1974, addressed to the Chief Minister, Punjab, on the subject noted above.
(2) It has beet: decided to appoint you as an E. A. C. On the express condition that you would not claim any benefit for the service rendered by you as Section Officer in the Punjab Secretariat and your seniority in the cadre of E. A. Cs. Would be counted from the date of your actual appointment.
Accordingly this offer is hereby made to you subject to the availability of a vacancy. This offer would not in itself entail any commitment on the part of the Government for your appointment as E.
A. C. In case these terms are acceptable to you, your acceptance should be sent so as to reach this Department within a fortnight of the receipt of this communication along with necessary undertaking that you will not claim seniority from a earlier than your date of joining, failing which it shall be presumed that you are not interested in your appointment as E. A. C."
2. The appellant conveyed acceptance of the above offer on 5-2-19 7 5(page 17 of the paper book) where after a regular appointment notification was issued on 7-3-1975, which is reproduced below :- "Government of the Punjab Services and General Administration Department.
Lahore, the 7th March, 1975.
NOTIFICATION No. 2-4/72 (SOPV).-The Governor of the Punjab is pleased to order in relaxation of Rules the appointment of Raja Muhammad Nawaz, Section Officer of the Punjab Civil Secretariat, as Extra Assistant Commissioner.
(2) He shall remain on probation as prescribed under rule 8 of the "PCS"(EB) Rules, 1964 and will be required to complete training and pass such Departmental examinations as may be prescribed front time to time. He shall be governed by "PCS"(EB) Rules, 1964 and other rules, regulations and instructions applicable to his service has in force heretofore and issued in future.
(3) The Governor of the Punjab is further pleased to order that Raja Muhammad Nawaz shall be treated as direct recruit of 1975 in the cadre of Extra Assistant Commissioners and will not be entitled to seniority prior to his actual date of taking over.
(4) Raja Muhammad Nawaz, on appointment as an Extra Assistant Commissioner, is hereby posted as Extra Assistant Commissioner (UT), Rawalpindi.
(Sd.) By Order of the Governor of the Punjab Prof. M. Rashid, Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Punjab."
3. It appears that the Governor of the Punjab at a latter stage reverted the appellant to his previous post of a Section Officer by a notification dated 13-7-1976 which stated that:- "The Governor of the Punjab is pleased to order that Raja Muhammad Nawaz, E. A. C., presently posted at Gujranwala, shall stand reverted as Section Officer in the Punjab Civil Secretariat with immediate effect.
(2) He should report to the Services, G General Administration and Information Department for further posting."
4. The appellant challenged the aforesaid order by an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, but without any success as it dismissed on 25-2-19,9 on the ground that the Government has rather done a favour to the appellant by providing him with a job of Section Officer because according to the Tribunal the appellant was still on probation and his service could have been terminated without issuing any notice.
5. The appellant has now come up in appeal to this Court by special leave which was granted on 2-12-1979. The leave granting order reads as follows:- "It is argued that the petitioner was appointed in the P. C. S. (Executive Branch) as an E. A. C. In "relaxation of rules" and was treated as a "direct recruit" as per order of the Government of the Punjab Annexure `C' at page 20 of the Paper Book). There being no defect in that appointment and as a matter of fact none having been found by any forum and there otherwise being no fault or misconduct on '' the part of the petitioner, he could not have on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, been reduced in rank or reverted as a Section Officer, especially, when the petitioner had agreed to and fulfilled the conditions of the said appointment which left no animus revertendi on the part of the Department to pass the impugned order of reversion. The point raised is of considerable importance of a public interest and is likely to effect a large number of cases of this nature.
Leave to appeal is granted. Security Rs. 500. Early hearing."
6. The original record of the case was produced before us by the Departmental Representative and its perusal showed that the basic appoint--ment of the appellant as an E. A. C. Did not suffer from any lack of competence on the part of the concerned appointing authority. It further appeared that the aforesaid appointing authority had the power to make .A the appointment in relaxation of rules, and he competently relaxed the same on condition of certain undertakings and surrender of certain right which were contained in the appointment orders and which were duly fulfilled by the appellant as above-stated. These facts stood proved from the record and were also admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent. In these circumstances we asked the learned counsel for the respondent as to how the reversion of the appellant was brought about. After referring to the file he submitted that it was just a recall of the earlier appointment order of a competent authority by the successor of that authority on the assumption that the earlier appointment should not or could not have been made. If this is so then the so-called "recall" order suffers from an inherent defect vise and mistake both of law and fact which will vitiate the same. In this context, the plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant would also have force that after the fulfilment of the relevant conditions e and undertaking by him there was left no animus revertendi on the part of the authority concerned to recall the earlier appointment order. For the principle and situations when an order can be recalled reference may be made to Shahbaz v The Crown (PLD 1955 FC 46), Lt. Col. G. L. Battacharya v. The State (PLD 1964 SC 503), Pakistan, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi (PLD 1969 SC (Pak.) 407) and The State v.
Muhammad Ismail (1980 SCMR 268). As the law on the principle of animus revertendi or loco poenitentiae stands authoritatively settled by the aforesaid judgments of ibis Court, we do not feel the necessity of dilating any further on the subject aforesaid and it will be sufficient for our purpose to state that on the peculiar facts and the circumstances of this case the order of recall was without lawful authority.
7. When confronted with the above situation learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as the appointment of the appellant as an E. A. C. Was on probation therefore under section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974) his service could have been terminated by the Government.
C It may be pointed out that this is not a case of termination of service but it pertains to the domain of the principle of animus revertendi or loco poenitentiae as above-stated viz. Of the recall of basic appointment order, and on the facts and the circumstances hereinbefore mentioned, it has tot be decided with reference to that and that principle alone, because, the original file shows that the authority concerned too did not purport to act under section 10.
8. The result is that this appeal is accepted. The order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 26-2- 1979 is set aside and the impugned order of reversion of the appellant dated 13-7-1976 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect against him. There shall be no order as to costs.
Cited by 31 cases
- FARHAT ABBAS Versus I.-G. 2009 SCMR 245
- MUHAMMAD ABBAS vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others 2005 PLC (C.S.) 671
- Muhammad Abbas vs The Government of the Punjab through its Secretary 2005 C.L.R. 1075
- MUHAMMAD WASAY TAREEN vs HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT OF BALOCHISTAN through Registrar High Court Building Quetta and another 2005 PLC (C.S.) 652
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs COMMISSIONER OF THE PUNJAB EMPLOYEES SOCIAL 2002 PLC (C.S.) 1211
- MUZAFFAR ALI KHAN vs L.D.A. and others 2000 C.L.R. 827
- MUZZAFAR ALI KHAN, ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR-GENERAL (HORTICULTURAL) 2000 PLC (C.S.) 924
- NOMAN AHMED and 3 others vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH 1999 PLC (C.S.) 884
- RAJWANI APPAREL (PVT.) LTD. Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE (TEXTILE QUOTA MANAGEMENT DIRECTORATE), KARACHI , Khalilur Rehman 1998 CLC 968
- Lt.-Col. (Retd.) MUHAMMAD SAJJAD YUNUS vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT 1996 PLC (C.S.) 753
- Dr. FAZLULLAH PECHUHO vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, CABINET SECRETARIAT, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION And 2 Others 1994 PLC (C.S.) 522
- TALIB HUSSAIN vs DIRECTOR, ENGINEERING DIRECTORATE GENERAL, HOUSING 1994 PLC (C.S.) 472
- NASIR MAHMOOD Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB 1993 PLC(CS) 1570
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus CHAIRMAN, LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE , Mushtaq Masud & Rana Muhammad Khan 1993 PLC(CS) 702
- FARIDULLAH KHALIL Versus -SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR/NARCOTICS CONTROL DIVISION, ISLAMABAD 1993 PLC(CS) 723
- MUHAMMAD ZAMAN Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD , Mian Ishtiaq Hussain 1993 PLC(CS) 60
- TARIQ MANSOOR Versus THE MEMBER FINANCE/ADDITIONAL FINANCE SECRETARY 1993 PLC(CS) 195
- ALLAH DITTA vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others 1991 PLC (C.S.) 522
- ABDUL HAMID vs THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL, L.DA. and others 1990 PLC (C.S.) 553
- ABDUL QADIR SHEIKH vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Through Secretary, Irrigation And Power Department, Lahore 1987 PLC (C.S.) 51
- MUHAMMAD AMEER ABDULLAH KHAN And 3 Other vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE 1987 PLC (C. S.) 676
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM BHUTTA vs DIRECTOR, LABOUR WELFARE, PUNJAB And Others 1986 PLC (C. S.) 406
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, QUETTA vs MUHAMMAD 1985 PLC 1090
- IJAZ AHMAD BHATTI And 3 Other vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD, LAHORE REGION 1986 PLC (C.S.) 52
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, HOME 1985 PLC (C.S.) 56
- Haji ABDUL REHMAN vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL (FIELD), AGRICULTURE 1985 PLC (C.S.) 247
- RASHID AHMAD vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR (SCHOOLS), DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION, RAWALPINDI, DIVISION RAWALPINDI AND 2 OTHERS 1984 PLC (C. S.) 64
- Syed GHULAM JILANI SHAH AND 16 Other vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB IRRIGATION 1983 PLC (C. S.) 356
- KHALID PARVEZ vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SARGODHA And Others 1986 PLC (C.S.) 420
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ MALIK vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LABOUR DEPARTMENT and 3 others 1985 PLC (C.S.) 472
- Malik KHUDA BAKHSH vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD, MULTAN REGION, MULTAN AND 2 OTHERS 1983 PLC (C. S.) 486