P L D 1969 Dacca 948 (PLP)
A. B. M. HABIBAR REHMAN‑Petitioner Versus THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, EAST PAKISTAN, DACCA AND OTEIERS Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1969 Dacca 948 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | B. A. Siddiky, C. J. and Abdullah Jabir, J |
| Parties | A. B. M. HABIBAR REHMAN‑Petitioner Versus THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, EAST PAKISTAN, DACCA AND OTEIERS Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1969 Dacca 948 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1969 Dacca 948 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: B. A. Siddiky, C. J. and Abdullah Jabir, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1969 Dacca 948 (PLP) (A. B. M. HABIBAR REHMAN‑Petitioner Versus THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, EAST PAKISTAN, DACCA AND OTEIERS Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Md. Moksudor Rehman for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Natural justice‑Maxim: audi alteram partem‑Government servant‑Termination of service‑Temporary appointment subject to condition that services will be terminable at any time without any notice and without assigning any reason whatsoever-- Termination of such service could be effected easily in terms of conditions of appointment ‑ Appointing authority terminating service, however, assigning some reason which adversely affected career of employee‑Incumbent on appointing authority in circum stances to disclose nature of such accusation to employee and to give him opportunity to explain his conduct. The appointing authority could have, as appeared from the appointment letters easily terminated the services of the petitioner who was a temporary hand in terms of one of the conditions of appointment, i.e. the appointment being terminable at any time without any notice and without assigning any reason whatsoever. Had the appointing authority done so, no complaint could have been made against the termination order. But since the appointing authority has assigned some reason which adversely affects the career of the petitioner, it was but incumbent upon the appointing authority to have disclosed to the petitioner the nature of adverse political records against him and to have given him an oppor tunity to explain his conduct. The appointing authority, not having done so, has clearly violated the principles of audi alteram partem.
Judgment & Decree
SIDDIKY, C. J.‑This petition challenges the validity of an order dated 5‑3‑66 terminating the services of the petitioner. The petitioner was on 10‑2‑65 appointed as a Junior Instructor (Elect), Dacca Polytechnic Institute, Dacca, and the letter by which he was intimated to join his post, contained a paragraph saying "Formal appointment letter will be issued to him as soon as his political antecedents are verified." Thereafter, on 13‑8‑65, the petitioner was appointed to act as junior Instructor (Elect) for a further period of six months with effect from the date of expiry of Officer Order No. 1581/13 dated 2‑4‑
65. Again, the appointment of the petitioner was extended by another six months with effect from 13‑8‑
65. On 5‑3‑66, the impugned order of termination was issued in the following terms: ‑ "Mr. A. B. M. Habibar Rahman, Junior Instructor (Elect), Dacca Polytechnic Institute, Dacca is hereby informed that his services at the Dacca Polytechnic Institute, Dacca are not required with effect from 6‑3‑66 (afternoon) in view of the adverse political records against him which makes him unsuitable for appointment." The petitioner has challenged this order on the ground that he was not given any notice to explain his conduct and/or the basis for the opinion of the Appointing Authority with regard to the adverse political records against the petitioner. The Appointing Authority could have, as we see from the appointment letters (Annexures `C' and `B'), easily terminated the service of the petitioner who was a temporary hand in terms of one of the conditions of appointment, i.e. the appointment being terminable at any time without any notice and without assigning any reason whatsoever. Had the Appointing Authority done so no complaint could have been made against the termination order. But since the Appointing Authority has assigned some reason which adversely affects the career of the petitioner, it was but incumbent upon the Appointing Authority to have disclosed to the petitioner the nature of adverse political records against him and to have given him an opportunity to explain his conduct. The Appointing Authority, not having done so, has clearly violated the principle of audi alteram partem. The ground raised by the respondents in their affidavit‑in -opposition that the petitioner is not entitled to the constitutional protection under Article 177 of the Constitution does not seem either to apply or necessary in the present case. In the result, this Rule is made absolute and the order dated 5‑3‑66 is declared to have been made without any lawful authority, and is therefore set aside. There will be no order as to costs. A. JABIR, J.‑I agree. S. A. H. Rule made absolute.