1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th September, 1988. Facts necessary for the disposal of this Constitutional petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner was employed as an Octroi Muharrir in Town Committee, Jamke Cheema. It appears that a complaint was made by one Faiz Ahmad that the petitioner had received from him Rs.5 as octro fee but did not issue the receipt therefore. On this complaint, a show‑cause notice dated 1‑2‑1988 (Annex. B) was issued to the petitioner asking him to explain his position regarding the aforementioned allegation. Petitioner submitted a reply (Annex. C) on 6‑2‑1988 denying the allegation levelled against him. He was then dismissed from service vide order dated 29‑2‑1988 (Annex. D) passed by Mahmood Ahmad, Vice‑Chairman, Town Committee, Jamke Cheema. It was stated in the order of dismissal that the charge against the petitioner was proved before an Inquiry Officer. Feeling aggrieved with the order of his dismissal, petitioner challenged it in the present petition on the ground that no inquiry at all was held to prove the allegation against him and that the Authority competent to order his dismissal was the Chairman of the Town Committee but the impugned order was passed by the Vice‑Chairman who was not competent to do so. It was also submitted by the petitioner that since it was stated in the impugned order that some inquiry was held, he made an application to the Town Committee for supply of the copies of the inquiry proceedings, inquiry report, statements of the witnesses and decision of the Chairman but he received no reply to his application.

2. In view of the factual assertions made in the writ petition, a report was sent for from respondent Town Committee through its Chairman but despite repeated reminders, respondent No. 1 failed to submit the requisite report/comments. Writ petition was accordingly admitted to regular hearing. Even today, no one has appeared for the respondents although notices for today's hearing are shown to have been served on them on 18‑7‑1988. They are, therefore, proceeded against ex parte.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assails the validity of the impugned order on the following grounds: ‑‑ (i) That the petitioner having denied the allegation levelled against him, it was incumbent on the employer to have held a proper inquiry to substantiate the charge against him but no such inquiry was held at least none to his knowledge. Petitioner was thus condemned unheard. (ii) That the Chairman of the Town Committee was competent to dismiss the petitioner but the impugned order was actually passed by the Vice -Chairman.

4. Since the respondents have not appeared, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner noted hereinabove viz no inquiry was held into the alleged misconduct and that the impugned order was passed by an incompetent authority have remained uncontroverted. In the circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. However, keeping in view the nature of the charge/accusation levelled against the petitioner, it is left open to the respondents to pass fresh orders if they so choose, of course, in accordance with law. Writ petition is thus allowed with this observation but with no order as to costs as the respondents have not appeared to contest it. A.A./G‑168/L Petition allowed.