' MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, J.---By this common judgment we propose to dispose of Civil Petitions Nos.140 and 141 of 2003 as they have arisen out of common judgment and involve identical questions of law and facts.
' Facts of Civil Petition No,140 of 2003
2. Shehzad Farooq Malik, respondent after qualifying B. Sc. (Civil Engineering) from University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore moved an application to the Prime Minister's Secretariat, Islamabad for appointment in Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (hereinafter to be called PIAC), which was forwarded to the Managing Director, PIAC for suitable action, the same was referred to the Special Selection Board, who evaluated the respondent for appointment as Works Officer (Civil) in Pay Group-V in General Services Department and found him suitable for the said post with the recommendation that the condition of advertisement as per recruitment policy be dispensed with or relaxed, which recommendations were approved by the Managing Director, PIAC vide his order dated 18-10-1995. As a consequence thereof, the respondent was offered appointment as Works Officer in Pay Group-V, who joined the duty on 28-6-1995 and was confirmed in service vide letter dated 20-8-1996.
3. On 20-3-1997, the respondent's services were terminated on the ground that his appointment was irregular as it was made without inviting applications through advertisement, without competition on merits and on the recommendations of the Prime Minister's Secretariat. The respondent filed Writ Petition No,8096 of 1997 challenging the termination order before the Lahore High Court, Lahore and at the time of its hearing the learned counsel for the PIAC undertook to withdraw the termination order, as such, the writ petition was disposed of. On 3-4-1997 the termination letter was withdrawn and the respondent was placed in surplus pool. The respondent again filed Writ Petition No,10639 of 1997 before the Lahore High Court, Lahore, impugning the order placing him in surplus pool, which was suspended, however, later on the writ petition was withdrawn by the respondent.
4. On 27-3-1998 the PIAC issued a notice to the respondent to show cause as to why his services be not terminated, which was assailed through Writ Petition No,6969 of 1998 but without any success.
After dismissal of his writ petition, he submitted reply to the show-cause notice but it could not find favour with the authorities and ultimately on 10-5-2000 a termination order was issued against him. The respondent then filed Writ Petition No,9977 of 2000 impugning aforesaid termination order before the Lahore High Court which was admitted to regular hearing and the operation of the impugned order was suspended on 6-6-2000. In the written statement PIAC took an objection that remedy of appeal under Regulation 85 of the PIAC Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985 was available to the respondent, as such, the writ petition was not maintainable. The said writ petition was remitted by the High Court vide its order dated 30-1-2002 to the Competent Authority with a direction to treat the same as an appeal and decide the same within a period of 30 days after affording opportunity of hearing to the respondent.
5. On 8-3-2002, the respondent in order to supplement the grounds taken in Writ Petition No,9977 of 2000, moved a supplementary representation before the PIAC competent authority, who after personally hearing the respondent rejected his representation for reinstatement vide its order dated 29-4-2002. He thereafter filed Appeal No,562(R)CE/2002 before the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad.
' Facts of Civil Petition No, 141 of 2003
6. Ashfaque Hussain Shafi, respondent was appointed as Motor Transport Officer on 2-4-1996. His services were terminated, as such, he filed writ petition in the High Court and on assurance of the PIAC that his case will be dealt with in accordance with law, it was disposed of. Thereafter on 12-5- 1998 a notice was issued to him, which was challenged through Writ Petition No,10450 of 1998.
Thereafter he was directed through a notice dated 4-7-2000 to appear for personal hearing in the office of Director (Admn.), PIAC at Karachi on 11-7-2000, consequently, he appeared and explained his position that his appointment was made after observing all formalities and his appointment was duly approved by the Managing Director, PIAC, he completed his probationary period and was confirmed. However, his services were terminated vide order dated 17-7-2000 against which he filed appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal.
7. The Tribunal after hearing the parties and perusal of the record, accepted the appeals of both the respondents by a common judgment with the observations that the services of the employees cannot be terminated without any reasons unless there are allegations of misconduct against them. In support of its view the Tribunal has given six reasons firstly, that the illegality was committed by the PIAC itself, secondly, that no misconduct was alleged against the respondents, thirdly, that the respondents have been discriminated, inasmuch as, other persons who were similarly appointed have either been taken back or no action has been taken against them, fourthly, that the citizens cannot be deprived of their livelihood without following proper procedure of law, especially, when there was no allegation of misconduct against the respondents, fifthly, that the principle of locus poenitentiae was applicable and sixthly that the decision referred to by the PIAC from Indian jurisdiction was not applicable to the present case because the respondents were not shown to be relative of any of the Ministers or the persons who recommended their case rather the rule laid down in the case of Nasir Jamal Malik reported in 2001 SCM R 934, was applicable in the present case.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their assistance. The respondents in both the petitions were appointed in Group-V and were later on confirmed by the PIAC. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly stressed that the respondents were appointed in violation of Recruitment Rules of PIAC and, as such, they cannot be allowed to remain in service. The question arises as to who violated the Rules in appointing the respondents.
The answer is very obvious that it was the PIAC itself who violated its Rules and with the change of the Government it took a U turn and started grumbling that wrong has been committed in appointing the respondents. This Court has taken notice of such situation and has dealt with the same in its pronouncements from time to time. Reference can be made to Director, Social Welfare N.-W.F.P. v. Sadunah Khan (1996 SCM R 1350), PIAC v. Nasir Jamal Malik and others (2001 SCM R 934) and Abdul Hafeez Abbasi and others v. Managing Director, PIAC and others (2002 SCM R 1034), wherein it has been held that the management of the P.I.A.C. Itself, in violation of its Rules and Regulations makes appointments and after the change of the regime takes about turn, terming such appointments to be irregularly made against the Rules. If the employers adhere to and observe codal formalities, follow their Rules and Regulations in letter and spirit and appoint the deserving people on merits, there would be no heart burning among the deserving people but unfortunately the employers themselves by violating and by passing the Recruitment Rules employe the blue eyed persons who are mostly undeserving and thereby deprive the deserving ones which create unrest in the society. It has been noted. With concern that law of the land is supposed to be for the ordinary citizens of the country and those who consider themselves to be from the privileged class, do not care to abide by the same as they consider themselves to be above law and as such, occasionally they violate it without realizing its consequences. In such view of the matter it was observed by this Court in the case of Abdul Hafeez Abbasi (supra,) that 'in such situationbesides proceedings against the beneficiaries of so-called illegalappointments, the officers who were responsible for implementing illegal directives should also be held equally responsible and severe action should be taken against them so that in future it may serve as a deterrent for other like-minded persons'.
9. No doubt section 10(2) of the Act empowers the Corporation to retire or remove any person at any time from its service without assigning any reason, after giving him an opportunity of being heard and not less than ninety days' notice or pay for the period by which such notice falls short of ninety days yet no adverse action can be taken against an employee without observing the principle of natural justice. Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that the authority having power to make the aPpointment has also the power to suspend or dismiss any person appointed in exercise of that power. There is no cavil with the proposition that the authority has the power to undo the act done by it but such provision would be subject to the relevant laws and the Rules and would be applicable only in those cases where underthe relevant law or the Rules a different intention does not appear. In the present case, the Corporation has its law and the Rules which govern the service under the Corporation. The authority could remove the employee who has been appointed in violation of the Rules but such action could be taken when no decisive steps had been taken in pursuance of the appointments. In the instant case, the respondents after their appointment were confirmed in service by the P.I.A.C., hence, valuable rights had accrued to them which could not be interfered with only on the ground that they were irregularly appointed by the P.I.A.0 itself unless there were other allegations against them,. In view of the principle of locus poenitentiae. This Court in case of Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh v. Sher Muhammad Makhdoom (PLD 1991 SC 973) on the said principle held as under:-- "In this context, reference can be made to section 21 of General Clauses Act and guidelines laid down in the case of Pakistan v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi (PLD 1969 SC 407), in which it is held that principle of locus poenitentiae is available to the Government or relevant authorities and further authority which is competent to make order has power to undo it, but such order cannot be withdrawn or rescinded once it has taken legal effect and created certain rights in favour of any individual. It appears that Service Tribunal has allowed appeals of the respondents mainly on this ground with cogent reasons in support thereof. View taken by the Service Tribunal is correct and we find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned judgment, which is hereby upheld and leave is refused. In the circumstances, petitions are dismissed."
The respondents were also discriminated as others who were similarly appointed like them, were not terminated and were allowed to continue in service, as such, the Tribunal has rightly interfered with the termination orders of the respondents in view of Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
10. For the foregoing reasons, no case for interference with the well-reasoned judgment of the Tribunal has been made out. These petitions have no merits, which are accordingly dismissed and .
Lave refused.