GHULAM MUJTABA Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, FAISALABAD

ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER). ‑ Ghulam Mujtaba, S. V Teacher (Rtd.) of Faisalabad has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the District Education Officer, Faisalabad, Deputy Director (Schools), Office of the Director of Education, Sargodha Division, Sargodha and the Secretary, Pension Cases Disposal Committee S. G. A. & I. Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned order dated 28th February, 1979 (Annexure 'B') be set aside and the respondents be directed to award to the appellant full pension or at least 2/3rd amount of the pension from the date of his retirement as already decided by the competent authority vie. District Education Officer, Faisalabad.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant has been working as Senior Vernacular Teacher in Faisalabad District. He served in that capacity for more than 33 years. Appellant reached the age of superan nuation on 12th April, 1970 and as such stood retired from service from that date. The appellant was, during his service, involved in a criminal case. He was tried and convicted by the learned Special Judge, Anti- Corruption on 21st June, 1971 after his retirement on reaching the date of superannuation. The appellant filed an appeal in the Lahore High Court but the punishment was confirmed. The criminal case was decided after the retirement of the appellant and as such there was no question of appellant's dismissal from service or removal from service after his retire ment. The appellant had been agitating through various applications for grant of pension to him since 1971. The competent authority i. e. District Education Officer, Faisalabad, respondent No. 1 after taking into consi deration the appellant's entire service record as well as the decision of the Lahore High Court, decided that the appellant was entitled to 2/3rd amount of the due pension by imposing a cut of 1/3rd portion of his pension due to his aforesaid conviction. However, when the papers were submitted to the Audit Office vie. Accountant‑General, Punjab, he refused to allow any pension to tae appellant on the plea that due to his convic tion appellant stood automatically dismissed from service. The decision was also upheld by the Pension Disposal Committee as per their decision contained in their letter dated 28tb February, 1979 (Annexure 'B') which was received by the appellant on 2nd March, 1982. Hence this appeal. '

4. We have beard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the competent authority i.e. District Education Officer, Faisalabad bad the discretion to fix the pension of the appellant under rule 1.8 of the West Pakistan Civil Service Pension Rules, 1963. It has, therefore, been submitted that the competent authority after due application of mind had imposed a cut of 1/3rd of his pension in view of his aforesaid conviction. It was, therefore, contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that after the decision of the competent authority the Accountant‑General, Punjab is not competent to refuse sanction of pension because Accountant‑General, Punjab is neither com petent authority nor appellate authority. The function of the Accountant -General. Punjab is only to scrutinize the length of service etc. of the appellant and has no jurisdiction to object to the discretionary powers of the competent authority which vested in him under rule 1.8 of West Pakistan Civil Service Pension Rules, 1963. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the rules 1.9 and 1.10 of the Pension Rules as relied upon in para. 6 of the parawise comments submitted on this appeal by the respondents as well as by the Accountant -General, Punjab are not at all relevant in this case. Thus, the appellant is entitled to pension of the extent to 2/3rd of the due amount as fixed by the competent authority. The decision of the Pension Disposal Committee has also been assailed on the same ground. It has been pointed out that the reasoning of the Pension Disposal Committee that due to his convic tion, appellant stood automatically dismissed from service was totally incorrect in view of the clear instructions of the Government as contained in S. & G. A. D. Department Policy Memo. No. SOXVIII‑2‑22/60, dated Path August, 1960 (Annexure 'C'). In this policy letter Government has made it clear that the dismissal of a civil servant can take place from the date of issuance of the order and not from the date of conviction. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in this case the date of conviction was later than the date of his retirement and for that reason no order of dismissal was ever passed by the compete: authority in this case. It has been, therefore, urged that the reasoning of the Pension Disposal Committee was quite arbitrary as being inconsis tent with the aforesaid Government Policy. Concluding his arguments it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the order of the competent authority i.e. District Education Officer, Faisalabad allowing the appellant 2/3rd amount of pension is very much in the field and cannot be denied by the departmental authorities. Thus, the appellant is entitled for 2/3rd of pension from the date of his retirement as sanctioned by the competent authority.

5. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has relied upon the parawise comments submitted by the respondents and also stand taken by the A. G. Punjab and the Pension Disposal Committee. Relying on these documents, the learned District Attorney has submitted that un doubtedly the appellant is not entitled for any ‑pension and hence the impugned orders were unassailable.

6. We have thoroughly examined the points raised by the parties and have also consulted the record. Perusal of letter No. S. q. W. 11‑1 (17)/78 (F/Abad) of Government of the Punjab, S. G. A. & I Depart ment (Welfare Wing) Section II, dated 28th February, 1979 addressed to District Education Officer, Faisalabad, shows that the appellant retired from service on 12th April, 1970 on reaching the age of superannuation he was already facing trial on the charge of corruption and obviously the Pension Sanctioning Authority could not sanction the pension until the case was decided. This has settled the issue that the appellant retired from service on 12th April, 1970 on reaching the age of superannuation.

7. The second question which needed our attention is as to what amount of pension is to be allowed to the appellant if he was at all entitled to any pension. For this purpose we asked the representative of the department as well as the District Attorney to place before is the relative file in which the competent authority had passed the order of sanctioning 2/3rd amount of pension to the appellant. The representative of the department placed before us the relative file which contained a detailed order. After perusing the said order we are satisfied that while sanctioning 2/3rd amount of pension to the appellant, the competent authority had taken into consideration all the relative facts viz. appellant's record of service as well as the appellant's conviction. Thus, this order has been passed after due application of mind by the competent authority and it is not a mechanical order. Since rule 1.8 of the West Pakistan Civil Service Pension Rules, 1963, gives the discretion to the competent authority to sanction any amount of pension and impose a cut on the pension of a civil servant, we consider that the order of the competent authority is unexceptionable. The respondents in their parawise comments submitted on this appeal, against para. 9, page 2, have stated as follows :‑------

"This office submitted the papers for 2/3rd amount of pension to the A. G. Punjab, Lahore in favour of applicant but being the final authority they rejected the case and did not sanction the amount. It is, therefore, requested that District Education Officer, Faisalabad is not hindrance in this case."

We reject the plea of the respondents that the Accountant‑General Punjab is the final authority in the matter of sanction of the pension, on the contrary it is the competent departmental authority of the civil servant who has to sanction pension in full or any part as discussed in detail as above.

8. The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned orders are set aside, the appeal is accepted and order of the District Education Officer, Faisalabad respondent No. 1, allowing 2/3rd amount of the pension to the appellant, from the date of his retirement on reaching the age of superannuation, is upheld. Respondents are directed to take steps to pay the said amount of pension to the appellant.

There will be no order as to costs.

M. Y. M. Appeal accepted.