2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

M.R. Khalid Malik for Petitioner. Muhammad Qasim Khan, A.-A.G. (on Court's call). The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner's services were terminated by the respondent vide order dated 31-1-2002. The petitioner, being aggrieved filed an appeal, before the Appellate Authority under the rules, who dismissed the same vide order dated 11-7-2003. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.

2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the impugned orders were passed by the respondents without providing proper hearing to the petitioner. He further submits that the Appellate Authority did not decide the appeal of the petitioner with reasons and without issuing any notice to the petitioner, therefore, the order of the Appellate Authority is not sustainable in the eye of law.

3. Learned Law Officer entered appearance on Court's call, he submits that writ petition is not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution read with section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.

5. It is no doubt that the matter pertains to the terms and conditions of the petitioner. Generally this Court does not entertain the petitions where the matter pertains to the terms and conditions of the civil servant. In spite of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution read with section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, this Court has ample jurisdiction to give directions to the public functionaries to act in accordance with law in view of Article 4 of the Constitution while exercising powers under Article 199 of the Constitution as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in H.M. Rizvi's case (PLD 1981 SC 612). The impugned order of the Appellate Authority reveals that the same was passed by the Appellate Authority without issuing a notice to the petitioner, and without any reason as is evident from the impugned order itself. It is the duty and obligation of the public functionaries to decide the appeal/representations of their subordinates with reasons as is evident by Article 4 of the Constitution read with section 24-A of General Clauses Act as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgment:-- Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Manager Airport, Karachi (1998 SCMR 2268). It is also the duty cast upon the public functionaries to decide the appeal of the petitioner after issuing a notice and after providing proper hearing to the petitioner, therefore, the same order of the Appellate Authority is C not sustainable in the eye of law on the touchstone of the principle of natural justice as the lain laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments:-- i. "University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmad" (PLD1965 SC 90) ii "Pakistan Chrome Mines Ltd. v. Inquiry Officer" (1983 SCMR 1208) iii "Pakistan, and others v. Public at Large, and others" (PLD 1987 SC 304) It is also settled principle of law that principle of natural justice must be read in each and every statute unless and only the same is prohibited by the word of statute itself as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme D Court in "Commissioner of Income Tax v. Fazal-ur-Rehman" (PLD 1964 SC 410). It is also settled principle of law that judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution.

6. In view of what has been discussed above the impugned order dated 11-7-2003 is not passed by the Appellate Authority in terms of the law laid down by the superior Courts, therefore, the impugned order of the Appellate Authority is set aside meaning thereby the appeal/representation shall be deemed to be pending adjudication of the petition before the Executive District Officer (Education), Khanewal. The petitioner is directed to appear before the aforesaid Appellate Authority in his office on 4-9-2003 at 11.00 a.m., who is directed to decide the appeal /representation of the petitioner afresh after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioner and any other person, who would be aggrieved by his order after verifying the record of the respondents within a reasonable time. He is further directed to submit his report to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within the stipulated period.

7. The learned counsel of the petitioner is directed to hand over a copy of this writ petition alongwith all the annexures to the learned Law officer, who is directed to send the same to the Executive District Officer (Education), Khanewal. H.B.T./M-2152/L Order accordingly.