1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were employed as Patwaris in Swat Settlement, after qualifying the requisite examination. They were served with show-cause notices, regarding misconduct, inefficiency and mal-practices, replies of which were furnished by them, negating the charges. They were also labelled for their involvement in political and trade union activities. On 7-2-1984 they were asked by respondent No.2 (now deleted) to visit him and on their report there, at the direction of the said respondent, they were arrested and sent to judicial lock up, where they remained confined till their release on bail. They were also dismissed on the same day and the appeals to respondent No.l being without any fruit, they challenged the impugned orders through the present appeals as illegal, without jurisdiction, ultra vires of the rules, unilateral, mala fide and against the principle of natural justice and equity. Respondent controverted the allegations by submitting the written statement and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, in the light of the record we propose to decide the appeals as under. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that notwithstanding the. temporary nature of the service of the appellants the factum of misconduct, inefficiency and mal-practices require proof/evidence and the appellants should have been proceeded under the N.-W.F:P. (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules; 1973. The allegations against the appellants were very serious and grave and the authority should have 'proceeded against them by complying with the relevant law/rules. On the other hand public Prosecutor/ Special Govt. Pleader argued that the appellants were involved in anti-State and political activities. This was against the rules of service and they being temporary employees, their services were dispensed away by the respondent with immediate effect. They cannot challenge the said order because they had got no locus standi. We have gone through the record of the case with their assistance and have come to the conclusion that the impugned action was illegal and 9gainst the principles of natural justice and equity. Notwithstanding the fact that the service of an employee is temporary, he cannot be dismissed from service in the manner in which the appellant and others were dismissed. They were charged for mis conduct and other disciplinary matters which require thorough probe by appointing an Authorised Officer, Enquiry officer or Committee and providing all the facilities to the appellant and others to defend their rights. In the present case they were summoned by respondent No.2 to his office, were got arrested through the local police at his direction and the impugned order was passed on the same day. No copy of enquiry report was given to them. No show-cause notice was served upon them. An employee working on temporary basis can be dismissed from service without holding an enquiry, if no vacancy exists against which he was appointed but in any other case involving misconduct his services cannot be dispensed away by a mere stroke of pen. On the basis of the above we are constrained to accept the present appeal. They are entitled to half pay and full allowances as admissible in Part (b) of F.R.

54. S. Q. /68/Sr.N Appeal accepted.