1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

In this set of five appeals, the appellants were appointed by the Competent Authority on regular basis in relaxation of the relevant rules by the Punjab Government. All the appellants in these cases were appointed prior to 5‑7‑1977.

2. However, after the promulgation of Martial Law on 5‑7‑1977, Martial Law Instruction No. 21 was issued by the Martial Law Administrator, Zone `A', Punjab, to scrutinise the ad hoc appointments. Paragraph 3 of the Martial Law Instruction No. 21 reads as follows :‑ "Martial Law Administrator, Punjab, Zone `A' further directs that all appointments, whether by initial recruitment or by promotion, made otherwise than in accordance with the prescribed method of recruit ment/promotions, shall be deemed to have been made on ad hoc basis notwithstanding that they have been made in the purported exercise of power of relaxation of rules and their cases will also be regulated according to policy given in para. 2 above." It is by virtue of the provisions reproduced above that the appointments held by the appellants though regular to start with were deemed to have been made on ad hoc basis and were rendered liable to be terminated.

3. Admittedly, the termination order was not proceeded by any Show Cause Notice. The appellants have vehemently relied upon the, decision of Lahore High Court in P L D 1978 Lah. 752 vide which the impugned order passed in similar circumstances was set aside by the Lahore High Court on the ground that the same offended against the requirements of the principles of natural justice. The learned Government Pleader in his turn contended that since under paragraph 3 of Martial Law Instruction No. 21, the appellants were deemed to be ad hoc appointees, therefore, they were not entitled to any show‑cause notice.

4. We are afraid, we cannot subscribe to the view canvassed by the learned Government Pleader. In our view, even for the conversion of regular appointments of the appellants into ad hoc, it was necessary to serve the appellants with a Show‑Cause Notice as the action was clearly to their detriment. Evidently the order under appeal and M. L. A. No. 21 both A constituted the impugned order. There was nothing in the Martial Law Instruction No. 21 to exclude the requirements of natural justice. The Lahore High Court vide judgment reported as P L J 1978 Lah. 218 (?) struck down an order passed under M. L. I. 21 with the following observations :‑ "Martial saw Instructions do not expressly take away the right of personal Bearing of the persons to be affected as a result of the review carried out under the instructions. It is now well established that right of personal hearing of a person to be affected based on the principle of natural justice, is to be read in every statute." Justice Khalil‑ur‑Rehman based his conclusions reproduced above upon the Supreme Court judgment in Abdur Rehrnan v. Collector and Deputy Commis sioner, Bahawalnagar (P L D 1964 S C 461). We respectfully follow the same and hold accord ingly. We are, therefore, of the view that the appellants were entitled to the Show‑Cause Notice without which no action could have been taken against them. The appellants have raised various other contentions to impugn the legality of the action taken against them under M. L. I. No.

21. We leave the parties to raise the objections before the Departmental Authorities. Consequently the appeals are accented and the impugned orders are set aside. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal accepted.