PLJ 2023 Lahore (Note) 51
[Multan Bench, Multan]
Present: Anwaar Hussain, J.
Dr. MUHAMMAD SAMAD KHAWAJA--Petitioner
versus
GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary etc.--Respondents
W.P. No. 3385 of 2021, heard on 2.12.2021.
Punjab Civil Servants Pension Rules, 1955--
----R. 1.8(a)(b)--Retirement from service--Issuance of show-cause notice after retirement--Initiating of recovery proceedings--Petitioner stood retied from service and he was issued impugned notice under Rules 1.8(a) of Rules after more than 2½ years of his retirement--Recovery proceedings against an employee shall not be initiated after one year of his retirement--This leaves no justification for respondents to issue impugned notice to petitioner after lapse of more than 2½ years--There was neither any room left for respondents to issue impugned notice nor there is anything, in rebuttal with respondent side to justify issuance thereof after one year of retirement of petitioner--Petition allowed.
[Para 7 & 8] A, B & D
PLJ 2021 SC 175 ref.
Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006—
----S. 1(4)(iii)--Disciplinary proceedings--Disciplinary proceedings can be initiated can be against a civil servant within one year after his retirement in terms of Section 1(4) (iii) of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 (“the PEEDA Act”). [Para 8] C
Mr. Zafar Mehboob Langrial, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Muhammad Ayub Buzdar, Assistant Advocate General for Respondents.
Mr. Khurshid Iqbal, Chief Medical Technician Health, Muzaffargarh.
Date of hearing: 2.12.2021.
Judgment
Through this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has challenged show-cause notice dated 02.07.2020 (“the impugned notice”) on the ground that it is illegal and unlawful as the same has been issued against the law inasmuch as the petitioner stood retired from Government service on 10.11.2017 and under Rule 1.8 of the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules, 1955 (‘the Rules”), a show-cause notice cannot be issued to a Government servant after lapse of one year of his retirement.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that impugned notice was issued, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner, while working as Medical Superintendent, DHQ, Hospital Muzaffargarh, applied for issuance of retirement Notification w.e.f. 10.11.2017, whereas on perusal of his file, it transpired that his date of birth written in his own handwriting in Punjab Public Service Commission Performa is 11.11.1957; on the other hand, according to his Secondary School Certificate, he was born on 11.11.1956; even though, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation, he continued to work and enjoy the powers of DDO from 10.11.2016 to 13.04.2017 and drew salaries for the said period on the basis of forged/bogus documents illegally and unlawfully.
3. Report and parawise comments were filed by the respondents wherein the contents of the impugned notice were reiterated.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from service on 10.11.2017 but instead of releasing his pensionary benefits, Respondent No. 2 has issued impugned notice, which violates the mandate of Rule 1.8 of the Rules as a show-cause notice cannot be issued to a civil servant after lapse of one year of his retirement. Places reliance on Khalid Imran Khan Barki v. Government of Punjab and others (2021 PLC (CS) 426).
5. When confronted as to how proceedings initiated against a retired employee are sustainable after period of more than one year, no plausible explanation could be given by learned Law Officer.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. It is admitted position that the petitioner stood retied from service on 10.11.2017 and he was issued impugned notice under Rules 1.8(a) of the Rules on 02.07.2020, i.e., after more than 2½ years of his retirement. Rule 1.8 of the Rules reads as under:
“1.8 (a) Good conduct is an implied condition of every kind of pension. Government may withhold or withdraw a pension or any part of it if the pensioner be convicted of serious crime or be found to have been guilty of grave misconduct either during or after the completion of his service:
Provided that before any order to this effect is issued, the pension Sanctioning Authority shall give full opportunity to the pensioner to vindicate his position.
(b) Government reserves to themselves the right of recovery from the pension of Government pensioner on account of losses found in judicial or departmental proceedings to have been caused to Government by the negligence, or fraud of such Government pensioner during his service:
Provided that such departmental proceedings shall not be instituted after more than a year from the date of retirement of the Government pensioner.
Note-If the departmental proceedings are not completed within one year after retirement of the Government servant, he may be allowed to draw up to 80% or less of full pension so as to ensure that Government loss in full is recovered from the balance. In the case of judicial proceedings, judgment of the Court may be awaited. If the proceedings are delayed beyond one year after retirement, reduced pension may be allowed as in the case of pensioners facing departmental proceedings.
(c) In case the amount of pension granted to a Government servant be afterwards found to be in excess of that to which he is entitled under the rules, he shall be called upon to refund such excess.
(Emphasis supplied)
Bare perusal of above referred rule clearly indicates that it has been carved out in a mandatory manner that recovery proceedings against an employee shall not be initiated after one year of his retirement. This leaves no justification for the respondents to issue the impugned notice to the petitioner after lapse of more than 2½ years. Hence, reliance on Khalid Imran Khan Barki supra is well placed by learned counsel for the petitioner wherein this Court has held as under:
“14. In view of above referred mandatory provisions of law, there was no justification for the Respondents to issue the impugned show-cause notice after more than 4 years 9 months of retirement of Petitioner when he was no longer civil servant even as per Rule 1.8(b) of Pension Rules. Therefore, this Petition is allowed and the proceedings under Rule 1.8 of Pension rules through show-cause notice dated 22.09.2016 are set aside. No order as to costs.”
(Emphasis supplied)
I am further fortified by the dicta laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Province of Punjab through Conservator of Forest, Faisalabad and others v. Javed Iqbal (PLJ 2021 SC 175) wherein Rule 1.8 (b) came under discussion and their lordships examined the reason for the limitation of one year envisaged under clause (b) of Rule 1.8 and held that the Government reserves the right of recovery from the pension of a Government pensioner on account of losses found in judicial or departmental proceedings to have been caused to Government by negligence or fraud of such Government servant during his service, but such right is not available to the Government for an indefinite period. Reference in Javed Iqbal supra has also been made to Notification No. SOR-I(S&GAD)4-38/97 dated 10.01.1998 wherein the Government itself has envisaged as under:
“... the Government reserves to itself the right to recover from the pension the amount of any pecuniary loss which it has suffered while the pensioner was in service. It is, however, to be noted that this power cannot be resorted to after afflux of one year from the date of retirement of the petitioner.”
8. Even otherwise, disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against a civil servant within one year after his retirement in terms of Section 1(4)(iii) of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 (“the PEEDA Act”). Similarly, if the proceedings are initiated under the PEEDA Act, the same are to be finalized within a period of two years as envisaged under Section 21 thereof. Hence, in any eventuality, a retired civil servant cannot be subjected to accountability for an indefinite period. In view of the above, there was neither any room left for the respondents to issue the impugned notice nor there is anything, in rebuttal with the respondent side to justify the issuance thereof after one year of retirement of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned notice cannot sustain in the eye of law.
9. For that has been discussed above, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned notice as well as subsequent proceedings are set aside and the respondents are directed to release pensionary benefits to the petitioner in accordance with law.
(Y.A.) Petition allowed
0 Comments