Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Law: Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006

Section: 21, 24-A

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Art. 199--Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, (XII of 2006), S. 21--Punjab Town Improvement Trust Service Rules, 1945, R. 21--Town Improvement Act, 1922 (IV of 1922), S. 17--Fundamental Rules, R. 24 A--Challenged departmental proceedings and penalties imposed after their retirement--Court held that employees of a statutory body were not amenable to jurisdiction of Punjab Service Tribunal and constitutional petitions were maintainable--Doctrine of coram non judice--Doctrine of locus-poenitentiae--Principles relating to mala fide exercise of authority--Departmental proceedings after retirement recovery of benefits wrongly granted by department constitutional petition--Maintainability--Alternate remedy--Coram non judice--Employees of statutory body--Retirement during inquiry--Abatement of proceedings--Penalty after retirement--delay in initiation of proceedings stale charges--Mala fide exercise of authority--Incompetent authority--Clean chit in criminal proceedings--Acquittal--BS-19 promotion--Recovery of salary and benefits--Estoppel--Posthumous benefits--Pensionary benefits--Impugned orders set aside--Petitioners in these matters were supposed to assail impugned orders before PST, I am of view that since petitioners did not fall within definition of civil servants they could not approach PST against penultimate orders--Petitioner in this petition and connected petition bearing W.P. No. 3876/2016, breathed his last during pendency of these matters, thus, his legal heirs could not approach PST rather they could only invoke constitutional jurisdiction of this Court for payment of posthumous benefits of their predecessor--Matters in hand are concerned, conduct of competent authority portrayed herein stands proof of fact that proceedings were initiated against petitioners by an incompetent authority which continued even after their superannuation, without any justification--Moreover, since appointing authority of petitioners was Trust, no order prejudicial to their rights could be passed by Chairman, in its individual capacity, thus, impugned orders were coram-non-judice--There was no cavil with…