2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.

Facts leading to this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis which was extended up to 30-12-1997, however, Government of Punjab issued a notification dated 24-9-2007, whereby a scheme was approved giving new contract to the SSMTs after the expiry of their contract on 31-12-2007 on the following terms:- (i) SSMTs having the qualification of M.Sc. in Physics, Chemistry, Bloor Maths will be adjusted as SEE (SC) while the other Master Degree-holders will be adjusted as SSE (Arts). (ii) SSMTs having the qualification of B.Sc. will be adjusted as SESE (Sc) while the BA Degree-holders will be adjusted as SESE (Arts). The posts shall stand down graded in BS-14. (iii) The contract of SSMTs not falling in category (i) and (ii) above will be extended for the period of three years as SSMT during which they will have to acquire the requisite qualification for category (i) or (ii) above.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the notification issued by the Government of Punjab dated 24-9-2007 the petitioner continued with his service till 5-4-2008. However, during this tenure, the petitioner was involved in a false case and was suspended through order dated 26-11-2007. Finally the petitioner was declared innocent and the suspension order was withdrawn through order dated 12-1-2008, but unfortunately on 5-4-2008 he was relieved from service without any reason and issuance of any notice, whereas all other teachers similarly placed appointed on contract basis are still serving on the strength of notification dated 24-9-2007, which is a clear discrimination and the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.3870 of 2008 which was disposed of with a direction to the Secretary Education to grant a chance of personal hearing to the petitioner and then decide the matter afresh but surprisingly through order dated 23-7-2008 a different stance is taken by the Secretary Education (Schools) and certain allegations are levelled against the petitioner in the said impugned order of 23-7-2008 which otherwise cannot sustain in the eye of law.

3. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate-General submits that no doubt in pursuance of notification dated 24-9-2007 issued by the Government of Punjab the petitioner's contract was extended and he continued till 5-4-2008, however, his Headmaster found him involved in grouping amongst teachers and noted his conduct as rude and offensive and performance very poor in the subjects of Science and Math, so he was relieved of duties on 5-4-2008. Further submits that Secretary Education in compliance to the Court's directions afforded a chance of personal hearing to the petitioner where he controverted the allegations levelled by the Headmaster then the decision made by the Secretary cannot be interfered with.

4. Arguments heard. Available record perused.

5. The order dated 23-7-2008 clearly reveals that certain allegations were levelled against the petitioner and it is admitted even today that neither any charge-sheet was served to the petitioner nor any show-cause notice was issued granting a fair chance to defend himself When this point is admitted from the record even today, the impugned order dated 23-7-2008 cannot sustain in the eye of law, keeping in view the well-settled law laid down by the honourble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported as Muhammad Amjad v. WAPDA (1998 PSC 337), wherein it is held that "whenever there is some element of allegation in the termination order, without resorting to the procedure of regular inquiry, no one can be non-suited despite the fact that the employee is even on contract".

6. As observed earlier, in the present case neither the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice nor charge-sheet was issued nor any inquiry was conducted, meaning thereby that the petitioner was not afforded a proper chance to defend himself against the allegations levelled, thus relying on the judgment supra, the impugned order is declared illegal, set aside and the petitioner is reinstated into service. However, it is open to the departmental authority to hold regular inquiry against the petitioner into the allegations levelled in the impugned order, if they so advised. Writ petition is allowed accordingly. S.A.K./T-20/L. Petition allowed.