PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB vs ABDUL AZIZ QURESHI
This is an appeal by leave directed against the order of the Punjab Services Tribunal, Lahore, dated 14-7-1988, whereby the respondent's removal from service under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, was set aside. The respondent, a Principal at a Government Commercial Training Institute, had been retired upon completing 25 years of service qualifying for pension, based on a recommendation noting that a case was under trial against him in the Anti-Corruption Establishment. The core legal question concerned the validity of retirement under section 12(ii) when the foundational premise—the pending anti-corruption case—resulted in an honorable acquittal and the allegations were found to be frivolous and motivated by extraneous reasons. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the very basis of the recommendation for removal was knocked out by the subsequent acquittal and the Punjab Service Tribunal correctly appreciated the record without any misreading or non-reading, the appeal against the Tribunal's judgment must fail. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that a retirement order predicated on pending criminal proceedings cannot sustain when the foundational criminal case results in an acquittal demonstrating that the civil servant was subjected to prosecution for extraneous reasons.
- Whether retirement from service under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 can be sustained when the foundational anti-corruption case results in acquittal?
- Can a service tribunal set aside an order of retirement where the basis for recommendation was found to be non-existent or frivolous?
- Is a civil servant's retirement order immune from judicial scrutiny when the underlying criminal proceedings leave no slur on the conduct of the employee?
- Section 12(ii), Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974
' MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J. ---This is an appeal by leave against the order of the Punjab Services Tribunal, Lahore, dated 14-7-1988.
2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that the respondent, Principal, Government Commercial Training Institute, Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar, was removed from service under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, having completed 25 years of service qualifying for pension etc. He filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal noted that the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Education Department, had recommended for retirement on the following material: "The case is under trial in the Anti-Corruption Establishment, Multan."
' The Tribunal observed that the respondent had since been acquitted in the said case and that the adverse entries in the A.C.Rs, had earlier been set aside by the Tribunal. In view of this observation the appeal of the respondent was accepted vide impugned judgment referred above. Hence, this appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused this record with their assistance.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent was rightly removed from service while the learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment.
4. It will be noted that the basis of recommendation for removal from service was that a "case is under trial in the Anti-Corruption Establishment, Multan. "This very basis was knocked out by the judgment of acquittal which shows that the case was started on the application of the students.
The Asstt. Commissioner enquired into the matter and reported that the application was moved by the students on the instigation of two Instructors, one of whom was trying to become officiating Principal. After going through the raid report and the accompanying documents the Asstt.
Commissioner held that the allegations were frivolous. The respondent was, however, tried as the case stood already registered. Muhammad Aslam complainant appearing as P.W. 7 in the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, admitted that he himself had not audited the account and the application was made by him on the information furnished by Mudassar and Ghulam Farid (Peon and Clerk) who were admittedly removed from service by the respondent-Principal for misconduct. The judgment of the learned Special Judge, leaves no slur on the conduct of respondent and rather shows that he was made to suffer from extraneous reasons. The very basis of the recommendation for removal from service having been knocked out, the appeal was rightly allowed by the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any misreading, non-reading or misconstruction. The appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.