2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Muhammad Ahmed Qazi for Petitioner. The petitioner was appointed as a Beldar (BS.1) in Market. Committee. Lahore vide order, dated 10-3-1997. He was appointed as Sub-Inspector (BS.7) in the said Market Committee by order, dated 1-9-1999 of the Administrator and was placed on probation. Vide order, dated 8-6-2000 of the' Administrator, Market Committee, A services of the petitioner were terminated on the grounds that it was made during the ban, .no relaxation/N.O.C. was obtained from the competent authority, and was against the policy and procedure.

2. The petitioner filed an appeal which was, in the first instance, dismissed by the Director of Agriculture (Economics and Marketing) Punjab, Lahore vide order, dated 8-11-2000. However, vide order, dated 5-12-2000, the Director, Agriculture, appointed a Committee of three officers to thrash out the record in order to consider the appeal of the petitioner and six other officials, whose services had been terminated. This Inquiry Committee found that services of Babar Shah Din, Beldar were terminated after issuance of show-cause notice and hearing while services of the petitioner were dispensed with without any show-cause notice or hearing. It was also observed that at least appointment of 56 officials in the Market Committee was irregular. Reinstatement of the petitioner and others was recommended by the said Committee. Notwithstanding the said recommendation, the appeal of the petitioner was again dismissed vide order, dated 4-5-2002.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of appointment of the petitioner as Sub-Inspector having been acted upon and implemented could not have been recalled particularly without any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further contended that, irregularity, if any, was committed by the competent authority and, therefore, the petitioner could not be made to suffer for the said irregularity. The learned counsel placed reliance on judgment, dated 2-12-2002 of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 8194 of 2002. In the said case, the services of Babar Shah Din, Beldar, Market Committee, Lahore were terminated on the ground of ban and irregularities in the matter of his appointment. This Court by relying on Time Kalsoom v. Secretary Education and others (PLJ 1998 Lahore 217) and Director, Social Welfare, . N.-W.F.P., Peshawar v. Sadullah Khan (1996 SCMR 1350) interfered in the matter and directed re instatement of said Babar Shah Din. He submits that the case of the petitioner is at par with the said Babar Shah Din. Besides the judgments noted by this Court in the aforementioned cases, reliance was placed on Province of Sindh through Secretary Education, Government of Sindh, Karachi and 3 others v. Miss Saima Bano and others (2003 SCMR 1126), Muhammad Yousaf v. Administrator, Municipal Committee, Mansehra and 3 others (2000 PLC (C.S.) 803) and Chairman, Minimum Wage Board, Peshawar and another v. Fayyaz Khan Khattak (1999 SCMR 1004).

4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that the petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector in the vacancy which became available by termination of the services of Muhammad Shahzad, who was later re-instated. Therefore, the post of Sub-Inspector against which the petitioner was appointed was not available. It is next maintained that the appointment of the petitioner as Sub-Inspector was made without inviting applications through public notice in the Press and the Selection Committee was bypassed. According to him, a plea of discrimination cannot be pressed to bless an illegal order with sanctity and for this reason he pleads judicial restraint by this Court otherwise it will perpetuate ill-gotten gains.

5. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been considered. I do not consider it necessary to examine the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties in details for the order proposed to be made: Undisputedly while terminating the services of the petitioner, the competent authority did not issue any notice and did not provide an opportunity to the petitioner to defend his appointment which was undisputedly made by the competent authority. In the case of Province of Sindh supra relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, services of some PTC teachers were terminated on the ground of ban on recruitment. The learned Sindh Service Tribunal interfered and the order was maintained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan with the observations that not only the orders passed were not speaking orders but also that the employees were not even given a chance of personal hearing, they were condemned unheard, it was clear violation of rule of natural justice and the law declared by the said august Court. Not only the principles of natural justice were attracted, the controversy is also covered by the judgment, dated 2-12-2002 of this Court passed in Writ Petition No: 8194 of 2002.

6. For what has been above, this writ petition is allowed. This impugned orders are set aside, the petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service and the matter is remanded to the Chairman/Administrator Market Committee, Lahore to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner and providing him an opportunity to defend the order of his appointment as Sub-Inspector. The intervening period may be treated as kind of the leave due to the petitioner. No order as to costs. H. B. T /A-21/L Petition allowed.