M. AMIR MUHAMMAD Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DERA GHAZI KHAN and others
The petitioner, a civil servant, challenged his compulsory retirement from service after completing 25 years of qualifying service. The Deputy Commissioner, Dera Ghazi Khan, had ordered this retirement in the public interest under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974. The petitioner's appeal to the Commissioner was dismissed, as was his subsequent appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the Deputy Commissioner lacked the authority to retire him because a District Advisory Committee, acting under the Interim Constitution of 1972, had previously recommended his retention. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, clarifying that the previous recommendation was made under a superseded legal framework. The Court held that the retirement action was taken under a new statute enacted in 1974, which operated independently of the prior constitutional provisions. Furthermore, the Court dismissed the argument that the petitioner was entitled to a hearing prior to the issuance of the retirement order, noting that the petitioner failed to cite any legal authority mandating such a hearing. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Does a recommendation for retention by a committee under a previous constitutional regime preclude compulsory retirement under a subsequent statute?
- Is a civil servant entitled to a hearing before being compulsorily retired under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974?
- Section 12(ii), Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974
- Section 4, Administrative Tribunals Act 1974
- Article 221, Interim Constitution of 1972
ORDER
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.-- Amir Muhammad petitioner having completed 25 years' qualifying service for pension was retired in public interest by the Deputy Commissioner, Dera Ghazi Khan on 14-5- 1975 exercising powers conferred by section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974). The petitioner appealed against this order to the Commissioner, Multan, who dismissed the appeal on 30-9-1975. He then filed an appeal under section 4 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1974 before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore on 27-10-1975. The tribunal dismissed this appeal on 30-5-1957. Hence this civil petition for special leave to appeal.
2.It has been submitted before us that his case for retirement on the completion of 25 years' service had been duly considered by the District Advisory Committee in pursuance of clause 4 of Article 221 of the Interim Constitution of 1972 and the Committee had recommended the retention of the petitioner in service. Learned counsel submits that the action taken by the Deputy Commissioner on 14-5-1975 was, therefore, in effect a review of the previous order which the Deputy Commissioner had no power to do.
3.This submission ignores the fact that the previous order of the District Advisory Committee was under a different law altogether. The Constitution under which the action was taken had ceased to exist in 1973 when a new Constitution had come into force and it was in pursuance of the provisions of a new Act which was brought into being in 1974 under which the petitioner was compulsorily retired.
4.It has further been submitted before us that the petitioner had a right to be heard before the order terminating his service under section 12 (ii) was passed. Learned counsel has not been able to show us any authority of law on the basis of which such a hearing was necessary.
5.This petition has no force and is dismissed.