Revenue Department

2021 SCMR 73 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 39 to 45Records-of-rights and Periodical RecordsRevenue department

Observations recorded by the Supreme Court regarding unsatisfactory performance of revenue department with respect to maintaining Revenue records.

2014 PLC(CS) 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Arts. 4, 10-A, 25 & 199Constitutional petitionRevenue DepartmentNaib Qasids/Gardeners/Drivers/Telephone Operators/ Watchmen/Junior Clerks, posts ofAppointments on such advertised posts on contract basis through Departmental Recruitment Committee

Issuance of appointment letters to petitioners on 7-4-2010 and joining their respective services after having been interviewed and selected by such Committee

Termination of services of petitioners vide order dated 31-5-2010 without notice and personal hearing alleging their appointments having been made without observing codal formalities

Department's plea was that District Officer (R) was Appointing Authority and due to his going on leave during recruitment process on account of illness of his father, Deputy District Officer (R) had attended such Committee and signed appointment letters of petitioners, thus, DDO(R) could not exercise powers of DO(R) being an appointing authority, which rendered recruitment process irregular and illegal; and that department had initiated disciplinary proceedings against DDO(R) for his such illegal acts

Validity

Two Members out of five Members of such Committee in their comments filed in Court had conceded to have interviewed petitioners, considered their suitability and recommended their appointments on merits according to contract policy

Nothing was available on record to show issuance of show-cause notice to petitioners or initiation of disciplinary proceedings against them

Record showed that while proceeding on leave, DO(R) being appointing authority had authorised DDO(R) to act in his place and represent him in such Committee, who acted accordingly for being deputized in place of DO(R)

DO(R) had defended his act of delegating powers to DDO(R) and appointments made on his behalf under signatures of DDO(R)

Recruitments, therefore, had been made by a duly appointed Committee, which had owned and defended process of recruitments, whereas issuance of appointment letters to petitioners was merely a formality

Petitioners had no knowledge about working of Government Departments, rather they had acted bonafidely in making applications for recruitment against respective posts

Petitioners after having been selected by such Committee could not be deprived of their accrued valuable rights without due process of law merely on basis of such hyper technical objection of department and that too in absence of any fault on their part

Petitioners had not been alleged to be unqualified for respective posts etc.

Department was legally and constitutionally obliged to have issued notice to petitioners and provided an opportunity to defend themselves in a meaningful manner, but they had been deprived of their such right without just cause

Petitioners, though appointed on contract basis, were entitled to be treated fairly in terms of Arts.4 & 25 of the Constitution

High Court as guardian of constitutional rights of citizens could interfere in a matter involving denial of such rights to them by State functionaries

Courts would jealously and vigorously guard principles of natural justice, which had been violated by department

Record showed that DDO(R) had been exonerated of charges levelled against him in inquiry proceedings regarding appointment of petitioners

High Court set aside impugned termination order while directing department to re-process cases of petitioners by adopting suggested procedure.