' A newly-established semi-autonomous college by the name of the Rachna College of Engineering and Technology, Gujranwala advertised certain posts. (Daily Dawn dated 28-10-2002). Petitioner applied for the post of Administrative Officer in BS-17. After the requisite interview he was appointed vide order dated 27-11-2002. Vide Notification dated 20-2-2003 he was dismissed from service and the said notification stipulated as under:- "The Board of Governors of the College in its second meeting held on 15-2-2003 decided dismissed from service Mr. Zaka Ullah Bajwa, Administrator Officer on account of misappropriation, corruption and concealing the facts which were proved after holding inquiry by a Magistrate and recording evidence and affording him an opportunity to defend himself with immediate effect i.e. On 15-2- 2003. He will, however, produce clearance certificate obtained from all concerned."
2. This order was challenged in Writ Petition No.3009 of 2003 and the petition was disposed of by this Court on 16-10-2003 on the undertaking given by the Principal to the effect'.
"That the said writ petition would be treated as petitioner's representation against the termination order and that the said representation shall be decided within 10-days."
The Board of Governors thereafter considered the representation, examined the record and unanimously decided to reiterate its earlier order of termination of petitioner's services. Hence this petition.
3. Petitioner has argued the case himself. He submitted that the order of termination is product of mala fides, that petitioner's services were regulated by the Efficiency and Discipline Rules of the College, that in terms of the appointment order prior to termination he had to be given a show- cause notice which was not given, that during his short stay in the college there was no complaint whatsoever and that the manner in which petitioner's services were terminated reflects grave violation of Law, Rules, and canons of natural justice. In support of submissions made he relied on a judgment of the august Supreme Court reported as Government of the Punjab and another v. S. Tassadaq Hussain Bokhari, (PLD 1986 SC 162). The comments submitted by the respondent are to the effect that there were serious complaints against the petitioner, that he manipulated the record, that he misappropriated some college funds, that while applying to the respondent college he 'concealed the facts that he was a dismissed Magistrate. In para 3 of the comments submitted it was averred as under:-- "3. It is correct that according to the appointment letter of the petitioner dated 27-11-2002 (Annex- A) the appointment was on contract basis initially for a period of two years from the date of joining subject to satisfactory performance. The E&D Rules of Government employees are not applicable to the employees of this College, as it is a private-public partnership project. The salary packages are different and the service conditions are determined and decided by the Board of Governors.
' In the clause 7 of the above referred letter (Annex-A), it is explicitly mentioned that the appointment obtained on the basis of forged, bogus documents or through deceit by any means is liable to be considered void ab initio. The petitioner at the time of his interview concealed the fact that he was an employee of Government of Punjab as Magistrate and was dismissed by the Government after proper enquiry. Further, the Honourable Judge may please note Ont. Mr. Zaka Ullah Bajwa, was entrusted to deal and assist with admissions in this newly-established College and he manipulated and tampered the admissions' record to serve his own interests, and misled his colleagues especially the Convener, Admission Committee and the Board. He also committed forgery in the appointment order and minutes of the meeting of Administration Committee held on 20-11-2002, he was found involved in practices which brought a great disrepute to the College. This promoted the Board to take immediate action of terminating his services to save the College's reputation and the future interests of its students and staff. Therefore, the Board of Governors after considering this fact and evaluating his performance and conduct terminated his services.
Subsequent to his termination, he refused to hand over the record and educational certificates in his custody to the College Authorities and took away the original documents including educational certificates of the students for which a case has already been registered with police."
' The acting Principal of the respondent College submitted that the petitioner's appointment was contractual, that the appointment letter did not provide for any show-cause notice that it consisted of two pages and petitioner has changed the first page and original page has been substituted with a forged one in which petitioner has added the provision of mandatory show- cause notice although this term was not there in the original order, that as per the original letter the contract was for two years whereas in the substituted first page he has made it for three years, that the salary provided in the original letter was "mid BS-17" whereas in the substituted and forged paper it has been made into "maximum BS-17". He added that on 26-11-2002 and 27-11-2002 along with petitioner's more than 23-appointments were made against various posts in the College and none of those appointment letters contained the provisions of a mandatory show-cause notice or a contract of three years. Learned A.A.-G. Defended the impugned order and contended that the appointment was contractual, that petitioner services were terminated strictly in accord with terms and conditions of appointment letter, and that petitioner has forged the first page of the appointment letter.
4. I have heard the petitioner, acting Principal of the College appearing for the respondents and have examined the record.
5. On 26-11-2002 and 27-11-2002 alongwith petitioner appointment orders regarding following officers were issued:--
1. Mr. Walayat Ullah, Senior Administrator Officer.
2. Mr. Zaka Ullah Bajwa, Administrator Officer Academics (petitioner).
3. Mr. Farooq Jalal, Administrator Officer, Accounts.
4. Mr. Akhtar Cheema, Lecturer.
5. Mr. Shahzad Shaheen, Lecturer.
6. Mr. Asad Ullah Mubashar Khan, Lecturer.
7. Mr. Muhammad Shahid Arshad, Junior Clerk.
8. Mr. Muhammad Asif,.Junior Clerk.
9. Mr. Muhammad Akhtar Yar, Junior Clerk.
10. Mr. Muhammad Riaz, Lab Assistant.
11. Mr. Rashid Farooq, Lab Assistant.
12. Mr. Sarfraz Ahmad, Lab Assistant.
13. Mr. Muhammad lqbal, Watchman.
14. Haji Sh. Shahid Tanveer, Watchman.
15. Mr. Muhammad Sarfraz, Gardener.
16. Mr. Nasir Ali, Gardener.
17. Mr. Irfan Naseer, Gardener.
18. Mr. Frank Masih, Sweeper.
19. Mr. Saleem Masih, Sweeper.
20. Mr. Ijaz Masih, Sweeper.
21. Mr. Younus Masih, Sweeper.
22. Mr. Ashiq Masih, Sweeper.
' In all the afore-referred appointment orders on the first page the columns pertaining to (2) period of contract and (5) termination of contract read as follows:--
2. Period of Contract. The contract shall be initially for a period of two years from the date of joining subject to satisfactory performance. The terms of contract may be extended if your overall performance is adjudged to be satisfactory.
3. Termination of Contract. Contract of appointment shall be liable to termination on ONE MONTH'S NOTICE OR PAYMENT OF ONE MONTH'S SALARY in lieu thereof by either side without assigning any reason. (Except in case of BS-5 staff where instead of one month 15-days' notice or payment of 15- days salary in lieu thereof is provided).
6. There is subsistence in the stand taken by the respondent College that the first page of the appointment letter has been substituted by the petitioner with a forged one. To have a clear picture of what the petitioner has done the relevant columns of the first page produced by the petitioner and the one produced by the respondent College are being reproduced below:-- Produced by the petitionerProduced by the respondent College PrincipalRachna College of Engineering & Technology, Gujranwala No. RCET/PF/A-32 Dated:Gujranwalathe 27th November, 2002Principal Rachna Collegeof Engineering &Technology, Gujranwala No. RCET/PF/-32 Dated:Gujranwala the27th November, 2002 To, To, Mr. Zaka Ullah Bajwa, near Zafar Islamia High School, Kashmir Park, Shahdara, LahoreMr. Zaka Ullah Bajwa, near Zafar Islamia High School, Kashmir Park, Shahdara, Lahore Subject: APPOINTMENT AS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (ACADEMICS)
ON CONTRACT BASISSubject: APPOINTMENT AS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (ACADEMICS)
ON CONTRACT BASIS On the recommendation of the constituted by Selection Committee, Board of Governors, you are hereby Administrative Officer (Academics) in Rachna College of Engineering & Technology, Gujranwala on the following terms/conditions:-On the recommendation of the Selection Committee, Constituted By the Board of Governors, you are Theoffered the post of hereby offered the post of Administrator Officer (Academics) in Rachna College of Engineering & Technology, Gujranwala on the following terms/conditions:-- Terms and Conditions Terms and Conditions
1. Salary. Equivalent to maximum of BS-171. Salary. Equivalent to maximum of BS-17 2.Period of Contract. The contract shall-be initially, for a period of three years from the date of joining subject to satisfactory performance. The terms of contract may be extended if your overall performance is adjudged to be satisfactory.2.Period of Contract. The contract shall-be initially, for a period of three years from the date of joining subject to satisfactory performance. The terms of contract may be extended if your overall performance is adjudged to be satisfactory.
3. Leave. Total casual leaves per year with year with pay shall not exceed 25 days. At days. At anyone time, more than six casual3. Leave. Total casual leaves per year with year with pay shall not exceed 25 days. At days. At anyone time, more than six casual casual leaves shall not be allowed. casual leaves shall not be allowed.
4. Accommodation.
Accommodation will be provided on Campus.
5. Termination of Contract. Contract appointment shall be liable to termination in view of the Employees Efficiency and Discipline Rules of the College. Show-Cause Notice shall before termination of assigning the Contract.5. Termination of Contract.Contract of of appointment shall be liable to termination on one month's notice of payment of one month's salary in lieu thereof by either side without be mandatory any reason.
6. Performance. Your performance shall -be assessed/evaluated on the basis of-6. Performance. Your performance shall be assessed /evaluated on the basis of:--
(i) Administrative skill and office management abilities.
(ii) Interest in work and duties.
(iii) Initiative taking:
(iv) Punctuality.
(v) Discipline(i) Decrease m dropouts.
(ii) Quality of Learning of students
(iii) Evaluation/ assessm entof studies learning achievement.
(iv) Punctuality.
(v) Discipline
7. Following points go to show that the first page of the so called appointment letter which is being relied upon by the petitioner is not the original first page.
(i) On all the appointment orders produced by the respondent College before this Court the reference number, is handwritten whereas in the appointment letter produced by the petitioner the reference number is typed. If the petitioner had got the reference number handwritten on the first page the forgery would have become too apparent.
(ii) In the original letter column pertaining to salary provides that petitioner would get salary equivalent, "mid of BS-17" whereas on the first page substituted by the petitioner it has mentioned as "equivalent to maximum BS-17".
' On Court query petitioner conceded that he got salary equivalent to mid of BS-17 as stipulated in the original letter of appointment produced by the respondent College.
(iii) The period of contract in all the appointment letters made by the College on 26-11-2002 and 27-11-2002 is two years and even in the original letter of appointment of the petitioner produced by the respondent College it is two years. However, on the first page of the appointment letter produced by the petitioner the period of contract is three years and it is repellent to common sense why the petitioner should have been given a contract appointment of three years as against 2 years contract in all others appointments made the same day in similar grade.
(iv) In none of the 23-appointment letters issued on 26-11-2002 and 27-11-2002 there is any provision of Show-Cause Notice and reference to any Employees Efficiency and Discipline Rules of the College except on the first page of the appointment letter produced by the petitioner.
(v) Petitioner could not produce any document to show that the college had made any Employees Efficiency and Discipline Rules to indicate that he has to be governed by those Rules,
8. There were serious allegations against the petitioner of misappropriating the college funds, off tampering with the college record and off exploiting his position of trust, in the earlier Constitutional petition the respondent College had placed on record a copy of the inquiry report conducted by Mr. Muhammad Najeeb Aslam. Assistant District Officer, Revenue Gujranwala who it is not denied had considered petitioner's written explanation about the allegations levelled against him and came to the following conclusion that, petitioner was guilty of misappropriating a sum of Rs.50,000 and he had recommended that all matters pertaining to his office be inquired into. The Principal of the respondent College while appearing in the earlier petition referred to, above had fairly agreed to consider petitioner's representation and in terms of his statement the petition was disposed of.
His case was put up before the Board of Governors and it has chosen to reiterate and uphold the earlier order of termination of petitioner's services.
9. Prima facie the allegation, that petitioner in his capacity as Administrative Officer manipulated the record and substituted the first page with ,the one wherein he has added certain favorable terms and conditions which were not stipulated in the original order is not without substance.
10. The allegations of mala fide are without substance. In the entire body of this petition petitioner has not given any reason as to which officer of the respondent College and why is he inimically disposed towards him to have taken the impugned action. Mala fides cannot be alleged in vague terms. In Federation of Pakistan v. Saeed Ahmad (PLD 1974 SC 152) at page 170 it was observed as under:-- "Mala fides is one of the most difficult things. To prove and the 1 onus is entirely upon the person alleging mala fides.To establish it, because, there is, to start with, a presumption of regularity with regard to all official acts, and until the presumption is rebutted, the action cannot be challenged merely upon a vague allegation of mala fides. As has been pointed out by this Court in the case of the Government of West Pakistan v. Begum Agha Abdul Karim Shorish Kashmiri (1), mala fides must be pleaded with particularity, and once one kind of mala fides is alleged, no one should be allowed to adduce proof of any other kind of mala fides nor should any enquiry be launched upon merely on the basis of vague and indefinite allegations, nor should the person alleging mala fides be allowed a roving enquiry into the files of the Government for the purposes of fishing out some kind of a case."
11. The petitioner is not a civil servant, the appointment was purely contractual and in terms of the contract his services could be dispensed with or terminated on one month's notice or payment of one month's salary in lieu thereof. Even otherwise he does not deny that the Service Tribunal has accepted his appeal against termination of the service as a Magistrate. He therefore, is not jobless either. In these circumstances I do not find any jurisdictional defect to warrant interference in Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Furthermore, petitioner has come to this Court with unclean hand and cannot seek any relief in equitable jurisdiction of this Court. The petition having no merit is accordingly dismissed.