ABDUL RAUF vs LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's service appeal as incompetent on the ground that an earlier order of compulsory retirement meant he had ceased to be a civil servant. The core legal question is whether a person who has been compulsorily retired can maintain an appeal before the Service Tribunal against a subsequent order of dismissal from service passed by the departmental authorities. The Supreme Court held that since the dismissal order was passed on the assumption that the petitioner was still a civil servant, the Tribunal erred in declining to entertain the appeal. The Court ruled that the definition of a civil servant under the relevant statute includes a person who has been a member of a civil service, which is wide enough to cover the petitioner's case, thereby converting the petition into an appeal and remanding the matter to the Tribunal for decision on merits.
- Whether an appeal against an order of dismissal is maintainable before the Service Tribunal after an earlier order of compulsory retirement?
- Does the definition of a civil servant under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974 include a person who has previously been a member of a civil service or held a civil post?
- Section 2(b), Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner was serving as Nazir/Ahlmad in the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Sargodha. On allegations of misconduct two separate departmental proceedings were initiated against him. Consequent upon one of the proceedings, the District and Sessions Judge by an order dated 18-7-1987 directed that he should compulsorily be retired from service. As a result of the second proceedings, the District and Sessions Judge, by an order dated 6-1-1988, dismissed him from service. He filed departmental appeals against both orders before the High Court. The appeal against the order of dismissal was rejected while no order was passed in respect of the other appeal. He then filed an appeal against the order of dismissal before the Punjab Service Tribunal.
2. The learned Tribunal took the view that consequent upon the order of compulsory retirement made on 18-7-1987 the petitioner had ceased to be a civil servant with effect from the date of the order. Consequently, the appeal against the order of dismissal was not maintainable before the Tribunal. Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal as incompetent.
3. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order of the learned Tribunal.
4. We have heard learned Counsel both for the petitioner and the respondents. Mr. Abdul Majid Sheikh who has appeared on behalf of the respondents has frankly conceded that he is unable to support the view expressed by the learned Tribunal. It is to be noticed that the order of dismissal was passed by the departmental authorities on the assumption that the petitioner was still a civil servant. That being so, it was not open to the learned Tribunal to decline to entertain his appeal against the said order merely on the ground that by operation of the order of compulsory retirement he could no longer be treated as a civil servant. It may be mentioned that the definition of "civil servant", as set out in section 2(b), the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, includes a person who has been a member of a civil service of the Province or has held a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Province. This definition is wide enough to cover the case of the petitioner.
5. For the reasons stated above, we would convert this petition into appeal and allow the same. The appeal of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal shall be treated as still pending and disposed of in accordance with law.