Pindi: A retired army Major has alleged before the Lahore High Court (LHC), Rawalpindi bench, that he was given compulsory retirement with inappropriate remarks due to his growing of beard.Justice Ch Muhammad Younis of the LHC issued notices to the Ministry of Defence seeking reply.
Petitioner Major (R) Zaheeruddin told the court that he was commissioned in the Pakistan Army, in the Artillery Corps, where he performed various professional courses in order to excel in service. Performance of the petitioner was exceptional and he was posted as the second in command, in an Artillery regiment at Lahore on December 31, 2011.
The petitioner said that he was maintaining beard in accordance with the laid down Army instructions (AR(I) 684), requiring the beard to remain within the limits of four fingers below the under chin.
While performing his duties he was told one day by his brigade commander and the General Officer Commanding (GOC), to trim down his beard. The petitioner, having a religious family background, refused to obey the command, as he was maintaining beard strictly in accordance with the Army rules.
He said that his refusal to obey the unlawful command of trimming beard, triggered the wrath of his commander who started victimising him. He first cancelled the Major's family accommodation and also turned down petitioner's request for posting out from the jurisdiction of the brigade commander.
On January 09, 2012, he received a letter from the military secretary, GHQ, regarding issuance advance notice for his retirement order in the following terms."COAS has approved your compulsory retirement 'Due to Fault' with SOD (Struck of Duty) i.e. (with effect from) 13 May 2012."
The petitioner feeling aggrieved at the hands of his superior commanders, sought for the remedy available to him under his service rules and submitted three petitions for the redress of grievance (through proper channel), by seeking interview of the chief of army staff (COAS), under the provisions of Pakistan Army Act Sec 168. But, unfortunately, all these three petitions were blocked in the chain of command illegally and unlawfully and could not reach the COAS.
The petitioner then filed a petition before the Adjutant General, GHQ, seeking for the interview of the COAS, which also went un-responded. Then Major, finding no way out, ultimately, on March 30, 2012, forwarded a direct application to the COAS, apprising him of the arbitrary action taken by the military secretary without issuing any show-cause notice, framing any charge sheet, holding an inquiry or giving any opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself, and being prematurely retired, "Due to Fault".
In response to his direct application to the COAS, the petitioner was called at the GHQ on May 7, 2012, to have an interview with the Adjutant General instead of the COAS.
During his interview with the Adjutant General, it was revealed that approval of petitioner's, "Compulsory Premature Retirement with Fault", had been obtained from the COAS, by misrepresenting to him (COAS) that fair chance and opportunity had been afforded to petitioner to defend himself and that the petitioner had been interviewed at Personnel Services Directorate (PS Dte, GHQ), for intimating the charges levelled against him.
Fact of the matter is that PS Dte GHQ had never held any interview with the petitioner. The military secretary GHQ finally agreed, that the petitioner had been wronged and his retirement order was held in abeyance.
On August 1, 2012, however, once again a similar malafide order was issued by the military secretary, conveying that the petitioner had been "Prematurely Compulsory Retired Due to Fault".
Legal counsel for the petitioner, Col (R) Inamur Rahim Advocate, while talking to this correspondent, said that the order will deprive the petitioner from all the service benefits that is a plot after completing 15 years of service, monetary compensation and chances of re-employment in any other organisation.
The petitioner has adopted before the court that he was retired with malafide and unlawfully and the Army Act provides complete freedom of religious practices.He has prayed to the court to declare the notification as malafide, corum non judice, without jurisdiction and, therefore, strike down the same.
He also prayed to the LHC to direct the respondents to amend, "Premature Retirement Due to Fault", of the petitioners to read, "Premature Retirement" (only no fault of officer) and issue the fresh retirement order, enabling him to receive the service benefits accruing on completion of 15 years of service.The petition will be fixed for hearing after the Ministry of Defence submits reply.
How can the Army of Islamic Republic of Pakistan can Stop a Ghazi - A Warrior of Allah from performing his Religious Duties?
@farhan_9909 @KS @Blackwater @maomao @Mad Indian @rock127 @Raj 30 @Decklander
Petitioner Major (R) Zaheeruddin told the court that he was commissioned in the Pakistan Army, in the Artillery Corps, where he performed various professional courses in order to excel in service. Performance of the petitioner was exceptional and he was posted as the second in command, in an Artillery regiment at Lahore on December 31, 2011.
The petitioner said that he was maintaining beard in accordance with the laid down Army instructions (AR(I) 684), requiring the beard to remain within the limits of four fingers below the under chin.
While performing his duties he was told one day by his brigade commander and the General Officer Commanding (GOC), to trim down his beard. The petitioner, having a religious family background, refused to obey the command, as he was maintaining beard strictly in accordance with the Army rules.
He said that his refusal to obey the unlawful command of trimming beard, triggered the wrath of his commander who started victimising him. He first cancelled the Major's family accommodation and also turned down petitioner's request for posting out from the jurisdiction of the brigade commander.
On January 09, 2012, he received a letter from the military secretary, GHQ, regarding issuance advance notice for his retirement order in the following terms."COAS has approved your compulsory retirement 'Due to Fault' with SOD (Struck of Duty) i.e. (with effect from) 13 May 2012."
The petitioner feeling aggrieved at the hands of his superior commanders, sought for the remedy available to him under his service rules and submitted three petitions for the redress of grievance (through proper channel), by seeking interview of the chief of army staff (COAS), under the provisions of Pakistan Army Act Sec 168. But, unfortunately, all these three petitions were blocked in the chain of command illegally and unlawfully and could not reach the COAS.
The petitioner then filed a petition before the Adjutant General, GHQ, seeking for the interview of the COAS, which also went un-responded. Then Major, finding no way out, ultimately, on March 30, 2012, forwarded a direct application to the COAS, apprising him of the arbitrary action taken by the military secretary without issuing any show-cause notice, framing any charge sheet, holding an inquiry or giving any opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself, and being prematurely retired, "Due to Fault".
In response to his direct application to the COAS, the petitioner was called at the GHQ on May 7, 2012, to have an interview with the Adjutant General instead of the COAS.
During his interview with the Adjutant General, it was revealed that approval of petitioner's, "Compulsory Premature Retirement with Fault", had been obtained from the COAS, by misrepresenting to him (COAS) that fair chance and opportunity had been afforded to petitioner to defend himself and that the petitioner had been interviewed at Personnel Services Directorate (PS Dte, GHQ), for intimating the charges levelled against him.
Fact of the matter is that PS Dte GHQ had never held any interview with the petitioner. The military secretary GHQ finally agreed, that the petitioner had been wronged and his retirement order was held in abeyance.
On August 1, 2012, however, once again a similar malafide order was issued by the military secretary, conveying that the petitioner had been "Prematurely Compulsory Retired Due to Fault".
Legal counsel for the petitioner, Col (R) Inamur Rahim Advocate, while talking to this correspondent, said that the order will deprive the petitioner from all the service benefits that is a plot after completing 15 years of service, monetary compensation and chances of re-employment in any other organisation.
The petitioner has adopted before the court that he was retired with malafide and unlawfully and the Army Act provides complete freedom of religious practices.He has prayed to the court to declare the notification as malafide, corum non judice, without jurisdiction and, therefore, strike down the same.
He also prayed to the LHC to direct the respondents to amend, "Premature Retirement Due to Fault", of the petitioners to read, "Premature Retirement" (only no fault of officer) and issue the fresh retirement order, enabling him to receive the service benefits accruing on completion of 15 years of service.The petition will be fixed for hearing after the Ministry of Defence submits reply.
How can the Army of Islamic Republic of Pakistan can Stop a Ghazi - A Warrior of Allah from performing his Religious Duties?
@farhan_9909 @KS @Blackwater @maomao @Mad Indian @rock127 @Raj 30 @Decklander
Last edited by a moderator:
