2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

JUSTICE (RETD.) RUSTAM ALI MALIK (CHAIRMAN).

The appellant was appointed as Research Assistant in Pakistan Study Centre, University of Punjab, Lahore and had worked there for about 16 years. As per contents of the memorandum of appeal, one Sadiq Ali Gill got published a news item in daily "The Dawn" on 19-11-2003 with a fake claim on a Book title as "Hindu Fundamentalism in South Asia". Simultaneously, a complaint dated 19-11-2003 was also submitted by Mr. Gill/before the Vice-Chancellor of the Punjab University. After coming across the news item aforesaid; the Director Pakistan Study Centre wrote a letter dated 19/20-11-2003 to the Vice-Chancellor about the same. The Vice-Chancellor of Punjab University constituted a four member Committee to look into the matter and which submitted its findings. Thereafter Mr. S. Riaz-ud-Din, Director of CEMB issued a letter dated 17-12-2003, directing the appellant to submit his defence before the Committee. He submitted his written defence before Mr. S. Riaz-ud-Din on 31-12-2003 and on 13-1-2004 Mr. Riaz-ud-Din again directed him to appear in person and so the appellant appeared before the. Committee and explained his position. On 10-4-2004, Mr. Amin Athar describing himself as Authorized Officer sent a letter dated 12-4-2004 to him with the direction to submit his written reply and which he did submit on 20-4-2004. An inquiry was conducted and which according to the appellant's version was completed in his absence and according to the findings arrived at as result of inquiry, the charge against him was proved. On the basis of the said inquiry, his services were terminated vide order dated 18-10-2005. Feeling aggrieved, he filed a departmental appeal on 28-10-2005 before the next higher departmental authority which was not decided within the statutory period and hence he had recourse to this Tribunal.

2. The respondents have resisted the appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the whole proceedings initiated and completed against the appellant were defective as there is no provision in the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 for the appointment of Authorized Officer; that the proceedings were conducted in a hotchpotch manner as neither any formal charge-sheet/statement of allegations was drawn nor any formal show-cause notice was issued to the appellant; that it is a settled principle of law that if a law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner it ought to be done in that manner and not otherwise, but in the instant case this principle was seriously violated as the laid down procedure had not been followed; that no witness or even the complainant was examined in the presence of the appellant and which is clearly in violation of the principles of law; that the entire action against the appellant is based on presumptions as no concrete, definite and direct evidence was produced against him in the course of inquiry; that the contents of the book of the appellant were quite different from those of the project of Centre for South Asian Studies and hence the impugned orders are not legally sustainable and are liable to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, the respondents have taken the plea that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction in the matter as the terms and conditions of the service of the appellant and of other employees of the University of Punjab are not governed by any statutory rules and as provided under section 48-A of the University of the Punjab Act, 1973, all acts done, orders passed or proceedings taken by the University in good faith are to be considered as final and cannot be called in question in any Court by filing a suit or otherwise. They have taken the plea that the appellant was required to appeal to the Board of Governors against the decision of the Vice-Chancellor/Chairman Board of Governors but he did not adopt the right channel and directly approached this Tribunal which is against the rules and in the violation of the service discipline; that the service of the appellant was purely temporary, being contractual in nature and hence he could be terminated without holding any enquiry or even without issuing a show-cause notice.

5. The respondents have controverted the claim of the appellant on facts as well and have taken the plea that in the proceedings of preliminary inquiry conducted by the Enquiry Committee as well as the inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer/Authorized Officer, the appellant was found guilty of publishing a book unauthorizedly which was in fact the property of Centre for South Asian Studies and he had no right to publish the said book in his own name. They have asserted that it was "intellectual robbery" on his part. It has been contended on their behalf that action taken by the University of Punjab is in accordance with the provisions of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced from both sides.

7. So far as the jurisdiction of this Tribunal is concerned, it appears that the action against the appellant was initiated and completed under the provisions of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and hence, it cannot be contended that this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction in the matter. So far as the proceedings against the appellant are concerned, it seems that proper course had not been adopted. There is no provision in the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 for the appointment of an Authorized Officer. In case a regular inquiry was to be conducted against the appellant, a proper charge-sheet/statement of allegations should have been drawn and signed by the competent authority and which could be communicated to the accused official/ appellant by the Inquiry Officer. It seems that in this case a proper charge-sheet/statement of allegations had not been drawn. It appears that the appellant was not provided an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. So far as the departmental appeal is concerned, in case it had been filed before a wrong authority, it could have been sent to the appropriate appellate authority. As the procedure prescribed by the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2060 had not been followed in this case, it appears appropriate to remand the case to the competent authority for de novo proceedings against the appellant in accordance with law.

8. In view of what has been stated above, without adverting to the allegations against the appellant and without recording findings thereon, the appeal is accepted, the impugned orders are set aside, the appellant is reinstated in service and the case is remanded to the competent authority for initiating de novo proceedings against the appellant strictly in accordance with the provisions of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. On the conclusion of such proceedings, the competent authority may pass a fresh order in the matter in accordance with law. The nature of the intervening period shall also be determined by the competent authority. H.B.T./36/PST Appeal accepted.