1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

This judgment shall dispose of W.P. No. 13647 of 1993 (Muhammad Ayub etc. v. Government of the Punjab, etc.), W.P. No. 13907 of 1993 (Muhammad Latif etc. v. Government of the Punjab, etc.), W.P. No. 14146 of 1993 (Muhammad Anwar, etc. v. Government of the Punjab, etc.), W.P. No. 14294 of 1993 (Muhammad Aslam etc. v. Government of the Punjab, etc.), W.P. No. 14373 of 1993 (Saeed Ahmad v. Government of the Punjab, etc.), W.P. No. 15079 of 1993 (Ghulam Abbas etc. v. Government of the Punjab, etc.), W.P. No. 15206 of 1993 (Muhammad lqbal v. Government of the Punjab, etc.), W.P. No. 16159 of 1993 (Abdul Rehman v. Government of the Punjab, etc.), W.P. No. 16160 of 1993 (Rafaqat Ali v. Government (if the Punjab, etc.), W.P. No. 16501 of 1993 (Muhammad Ashraf v. Government of the Punjab, etc.), W.P. No. 16984 of 1993 (Bashir etc. v. Government of the Punjab, etc.), together as common question of law is involved in all of them.

2. The necessary facts are that the petitioners in the above‑noted writ petitions are admittedly the civil servants and as such were performing their duties in the irrigation Department, Government of the Punjab, for the last s many years. The respondent, Secretary. Irrigation, Government of the Punjab issued a direction to his subordinates on the basis of a judgment of the Supreme Court to terminate the services of all the adhoc appointees in‑hi department. In obedience to the said order, the respondent No. 3 terminate the services of the petitioners forthwith without issuing any show‑cause notice to them. These orders have been assailed by the petitioners by means of then Constitution petitions before this Court.

3. It is contended that by lapse of time all the petitioners have become permanent civil servants by operation of law. According to learned counsel, no show‑cause notices were issued to the petitioners before terminating them services. It is maintained that the impugned orders are coram non judice inasmuch as they were condemned unheard which is against the spirit of natural justice. Mian Riasat All, Superintendent in the office of Superintending Engineer and Mr. Latafat Qaseem, SDO have been sent by the respondents with instructions to make statement before this Court. They conceded that no notices were issued to the writ petitioners when their services were terminated. Mr. Irfan Qadir, learned Additional Advocate‑General states that he has received fresh instruction today on telephone from the Secretary, Irrigation, Government of the Punjab to state that services of the petitioners were terminated without giving them any show‑cause notices. It is also admitted by the respondents that the petitioners had been doing their duties to the entire satisfaction of the departmental authorities. They disclose that a summary for the regularisation of their services had already been sent to the concerned authorities for appropriate orders.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and the representatives of the respondents. The record has also been read by me carefully. It is admitted that services of the petitioners were dispensed with by' the respondent without issuing any show‑cause notices to them in due course of law. They were, therefore, condemned unheard by the respondent‑authority. It is well‑settled that no adverse order can be passed against a person unless he is . heard by the competent authority. The respondents concede that the petitioners were never afforded an opportunity of hearing while passing the impugned orders. In such a situation, merits of the case of the petitioners cannot be considered by this Court because the impugned order is void on the very face of record. This being so, the impugned orders dated 12‑9‑1993 are hereby declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal consequence and are accordingly set aside. The petitions succeed and are allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./M‑1866/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Petition allowed.