Syed Manzoor Hussain Gilani, J.--This appeal, with leave of the Court, is filed against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court at Muzaffarabad on 16.8.2004 in Writ Petition No, 271/2004.
2. Respondent No, 1 was appointed as Lecturer English in Cadet College Pallandri on 7.9.1998.
According to him, he stood confirmed as permanent employee of the College after expiry of period of probation on 12.9.2001. According to him, the Principal Cadet College Pallandri nourished a grudge against him for different reasons and different actions were commenced against him, one of which was the process of termination of his service on the allegation that he is a "Qadiani", on account of which he was constrained to file a writ petition in the High Court, which was disposed of on 12.3.2003 with the direction that competent authority shall strictly adhere to the relevant rules in case of any disciplinary action against the respondent. According to him, after disposal of the petition, a warning was issued to him to improve his conduct and a show-cause notice was also issued alongwith a list of allegations. His service was terminated on 14.7.2003 on the . ground of his unsatisfactory service, average grade in Annual Confidential Reports, misconduct and indisciplined attitude. This order was again challenged in the High Court. The petition was disposed of by the High Court on 31.12.2003 on the ground that a review petition was filed by the respondent before the Board of Governors, which was pending disposal. The Board of Governors after hearing the respondent upheld the decision of termination of his service on 3.6.2004. This order was challenged in the High Court through a writ petition, which culminated into the present order. The learned Judge of the High Court felt pleased to accept the petition and declared the orders dated 14.7.2003 and 5.3.2004 as without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
3. The order dated 5:3.2004 was a decision of the Board of Governors, whereby his dismissal from service was confirmed and it was conveyed to him on 3.6.2004.
4. The learned Advocate for the appellants, Mr. M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi, Advocate, contended that the service of respondent was terminated on disciplinary grminds under Rule 30 of the Cadet College Pallandri (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1996 and no notice or the disciplinary proceedings, as visualised by Cadet College Pallandri E&D Rules, 1996, were required to be conducted. According to the learned Advocate, the learned Judge of the High Court has misconstrued the provisions of rule and has reached to a wrong conclusion, ignoring the difference between the Cadet College Pallandri (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1996, and Cadet College Pallandri E&D IThles, 1996. Substantiating his arguments, he contended that respondent was time and again advised and admonished to improve his conduct through different letters particularly letters dated 20.10.2001, 13.11.2001, 20.2.2003, 12.3.2003 and he ultimately was issued a warning and then a show-cause notice was served upon him on 28.4.2003 alongwith list of allegations. Finally his service was terminated on account of indiscipline. The review petition against the order of dismissal was rightly rejected by the competent authority. According to the learned Advocate, the Cadet College Pallandri is a disciplinaed institution maintained by the Armed Forces and standard of discipline required of the teachers of the college has to be to the satisfaction of the head of the institution and the competent authority i,e, the Board of Governors.
He also contended that respondent time and again disobeyed the orders of the competent authority, indulged in different activities not becoming of the college teachers and wilfully violated the orders of the competent authority. He cited certain examples, the learned Advocate contended that the respondent appeared in the test for the post of Assistant Superintendent of Police held by the Public Service Commission by obtaining sick leave. He violated the college orders, expelled the Vice-Principal from the class room, who asked him to signe a circular. According to him, these are some of the examples, which speak of his in disciplined conduct and attitude. He also contended that in four years service, he earned four average and one below average Annual Confidential Reports, on account of his objectionable attitude and negative aptitude towards his service career.
He also contended that the respondent had not denied the charges levelled against him in the charge-sheet, hence no inquiry was required under the Cadet College Pallandri E&D Rules, 1996. He placed reliance upon the cases reported as AKLASC and 6 others v. AJ&K Govt. & 8 others [1999 SCR 418] and Ch. Abdul Karim and 5 others v. Raja Muhammad Nisar and another [1998 SCR 296].
5. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No, 1, Mr. Abdul Rashid Abbasi, besides arguing the case at length at Bar, also filed the written arguments.
6. We have perused the written arguments of the learned Advocate. According to him, two set of rules regulate the discipline of the Cadet College Pallandri: one is Cadet College Pallandri/Board Employees Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1996 and the other is Cadet College (Conditions of Service)
Rules, 1996. According to the learned Advocate, the former relate to the disciplinary proceedings against the employees of the college, while the later relate to the general conditions of service.
According to the learned Advocate, when an action for misconduct is underway, one has to be proceeded in accordance with the provisions of the Cadet College Pallandri E&D Rules, 1996. Basing his argument on this ground, he contended that every., step visualised by the Cadet College Pallandri E&D Rules, 1996 has to be strictly adhered to such as the notice and inquiry, which have not been complied with in the present case. He contended that as the Cadet College Pallandri E&D Rules, 1996 do not contain the provisions identical to the provisions of Rule 30 of the Cadet College Pallandri, (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1996, hence the procedure under the Cadet College Pallandri, (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1996 applied in the case was unwarranted and order passed by the authority was against the mandatory rules. He placed reliance on a case titled Azad Government and 2 others v. Raja Muhammad Bashir Khan and 2 others (2002 SCR 259). He contended that provisions of all the rules have to be simultaneously read and harmoniously construed and every word and rule are to be given due meaning. According to him, as there are special rules regulating the disciplinary matters, hence the general rules shall have to give way to the special rules. He placed reliance upon the cases reported as Muhammad Sharif Chatter v.
Commissioner Rehabilitation & 6 others [2005 SCR 69], Raja Muhammad Sohrab v. AJ&K Government and 6 others [2001 SCR 481] and Airleague of PIA Employee Union and another v.
Federation of Pakistan/The President/Chief Executive and another [2003 PLC (CS) 145]. The nucleus of written arguments filed in the case by the learned Advocate for respondent is the violation of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, and authorities of this Court are cited in relation thereof.
7. After hearing the learned Advocates at Bar, and going through the written arguments filed by the learned Advocate for respondent, we have gone through the record of the case, rules cited by the learned Advocates for the parties and the authorities on which reliance is placed by the learned Advocates for the parties.
8. The fate of the case depends on the finding as to which set of rules out of the two is applicable in the case i,e, Cadet College Pallandri, (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1996 or Cadet College Pallandri/Board Employees Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1996.
9. There can be no cavil with the proposition of law that both the rules apply and have to be simultaneously read and complied with. Any contradiction, ambiguity, repugnancy, redundancy or irreconcilability between the two has to be resolved by harmonious application of the rules not by making the provisions of any of the rules as repugnant or redundant, unless it is inevitable. We, therefore, agree with the learned Advocate for the respondent that every word of law has to be read and given its due meaning as visualised by the authorities of law cited by the learned Advocate for the respondent i,e, [2005 SCR 69], [2001 SCR 481] and [2003 PLC (CS) 145].
10. So far the Cadet College Pallandri, (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1996 are concerned, as their title itself indicates, these regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of the persons appointed P to various posts in the Cadet College Pallandri. Besides regulating the method of appointment, determination of seniority, provisions of confirmation, pay scales, annual increments, medical facilities, accommodation, leave, group insurance, GPF, allowances, ACRs, promotions, selection grades, Travelling allowance, pension etc., these also contain the rule for termination of service under Rule 30, which enumerates three eventualities culminating into the termination of service. These rules also provide a remedy in the form of appeal besides making the Cadet College Pallandri/Board Employees Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1996 applicable in the case.
11.As for the Cadet College Pallandri/Board Employees Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1996 are concerned, these exclusively provide the procedure for proceedings against an employee of the College/Board in case the proceedings of misconduct are initiated against him and also provide major and minor penalties depending upon the nature of the misconduct, besides providing remedy of appeal/review against an order passed under these rules.
12.The respondent has admittedly been removed under the decision of the Board of Governors dated 5.3.2004. The contents of that decision are reproduced in the written arguments filed by the learned Advocate for the respondent, which are as follows: "The BOG discussed his case in detail, examined the record of the petitioner and relevant provisions of the Cadet College Pallandri (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1996 the contention that in the instant case in which he had been charged with the offence of misconduct, only minor plenty could be imposed was not borne out from simple reading of the rules. Board also felt that he could not plausibly explain his attitude in different incidents such as that of the Vice-Principal whom he expelled from his room, his refusal to sign the circular restraining the teaching staff to visit bazaar etc. during working hours and his appearance before PSC during medical leave granted on the basis of a medical certificate recommending rest. Finding his overall conduct to be unsatisfactory and not conducive to the good order and discipline required in the institution, and his services having been terminated on account of misconduct despite being a fairly well teacher, the Board decided' to uphold the earlier decision of dismissal from service."
His first removal from service, vide order dated 14.7.2003, was based on the grounds enumerated in the order dated 14.7.2003, which is as follows: "ORDER Mr. Naveed Ahmed Lecturer English (B-17) probationer was given many warnings/chances to improve his conduct and observe the college discipline, but he could not improve his conduct and failed to become a good Teacher. On account of his unsatisfactory service, average grade in ACRs, misconduct and indiscipline attitude. The Board of Governors of Cadet College Pallandri in its meeting held on 12.7.2003 terminated the services of the said lecturer with immediate effect."
The above order of the competent authority unequivocally reveals that respondent has not been removed from service under Cadet College Pallandri/Board Employees Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1996, but under the rules authorising the authority to terminate the service of an employee of the Board under the Cadet College Pallandri (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1996. Had the proceedings against respondent been conducted under Cadet College Pallandri/Board Employees Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1996 and order passed thereunder, the Court would have ordered strict compliance with the rules, and in case of non-compliance, the order would have definitely been rendered as without lawful authority in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case reported as [2002 SCR 259]. The basis of the argument of the learned Advocate for the respondent is built on this ground alone that Cadet College Pallandri/Board Employees Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1996 have not been strictly complied with, hence the order passed by the High Court is in accordance with law. We are sorry to agree with this argument, as the order of termination of service of respondent has not been passed under the Cadet College Pallandri/Board Employees Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1996 but under Cadet College Pallandri (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1996.
13. The Cadet College Pallandri/Board Employees Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1996, provide a procedure for inquiry in the cases of misconduct. The misconduct is defined in sub-clause (b) of Rule 2 of the rules as follows: "2. DEFINITIONS In these rules unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions shall have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:
(a) .........................................................................................
(b)Misconduct; means conduct prejudicial to good order or service discipline or unbecoming of an officer/official and gentleman; (c).......................................................................................
(d).......................................................................................
(e).......................................................................................
As per the object of the rules, misconduct is conjectured with the efficiency, that means misconduct in performance of the functions for which an employee is employed. There is a distinction between the misconduct in performance of the functions i,e, function of teaching, and discipline to be observed as a regular member of the College. An employee may be an extraordinarily efficient, capable, becoming of the job as far as the nature of his duty is concerned, but if he lacks the behaviour & conduct required of a regular member of staff of the relevant institution or department and conducts himself in his relation with the administration or his colleagues or subordinates or to whom he is subordinate, in a manner not becoming of a gentleman or in a manner which affects the administration of the relevant institution, it may be described as an indisciplined conduct. Thus a line of distinction has to be drawn between the misconduct and disciplinary conduct. Misconduct in relation to the E&D Rules means unbecoming conduct in. performance of the duties, and indiscipline under General Conditions of Service Rules means conduct not becoming of a gentleman as a boss, or as a subordinate or as a colleague.
14. In this case the authority has not attributed any misconduct as far as efficiency or performance of his functions as teacher are concerned, but he is attributed a conduct unbecoming of an employee of a disciplined institution. The word misconduct has a specific definition in the Cadet College Pallandri/Board Employees Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1996, but the word 'indiscipline' used in clause 3 of Rule 30 of the Cadet College Pallandri (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1996 is not defined in these rules. The rule under which appellants allege, the service of the respondent to have been terminated is clause 3 of Rule 30 of the Cadet College Pallandri (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1996, which is reproduced as under:
30. NOTICE OF DISCHARGE/TERMINATION OF SERVICE.
(1).......................................................................................
(2).......................................................................................
(3)After confirmation the services of an employee may be terminated by the Appointing Authority for reasons of indiscipline, reduction in the establishment being surplus to requirement or unsuitability due to misconduct, moral turpitude, inefficiency or conviction by a Court of law. No notice shall be required to be given in case of termination of service of an employee on disciplinary grounds. In cases other than those of disciplinary grounds the employees shall be given two months notice or two months salary in lieu thereof. If a confirmed employee wishes to leave the service of the college/resign his post, he shall give two month's notice in writing or surrender two month's salary in lieu of the notice period.
(4) .......................................................................................
The above rule authorises the appointing authority to terminate the service of an employee on the ground of indiscipline or reduction in the establishment being surplus to requirement or unsuitability due to misconduct, moral turpitude, inefficiency or conviction by a Court of law. In case an employee is removed on the ground of indiscipline no notice is required to be given to him.
But, in other cases, the employee shall be given two months notice or two months salary in lieu thereof. Thus a clear distinction is made between the case of indiscipline and other cases.
15. As stated above, the word discipline or indiscipline is not defined in any of the rules particularly the Cadet College Pallandri (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1996, hence resort shall be had to its dictionary meanings. The Oxford English Dictionary Volume V defines the word "indiscipline" as under: "Indiscipline (indi-siplin). Absence or lack of discipline; want of the order imposed by constituted (esp. military) authority upon a body of persons amenable to it; want of the order and method acquired by training."
The word 'discipline' is defined in Vol. 3 of the Oxford English Dictionary as under: "Discipline (disipline),
3. Instruction having for its aim to form the pupil to proper conduct and action; the training of scholars or subordinates to proper and orderly action by instructing and exercising them in the same; mental and moral training; also used fig.
4. The orderly conduct and action which result from training; a trained condition.
5. The order maintained and observed among pupils, or other persons under control or command, such a soldiers, sailors, the inmates of a religious house, a prison, etc. b. A system or method for the maintenance of order; a system of rules for conduct.
6. Eccles. The system or method by which order is maintained in a church, and control exercised over the conduct of its members; the procedure whereby this is carried out; the exercise of the power of censure, admonition, excommunication, or other penal measures, by a Christian Church.
7. Correction; chastisement; punishment inflicted by way of correction and training; in religious use, the mortification of the flesh by penance; also, in more general sense, a beating or other infliction (humorously) assumed to be salutary to the recipient. (In its monastie use, the earliest English sense.")
In an. Australian case discussed in "the words and phrases legally defined" Vol. 2, second edition the word discipline is discussed as under: "DISCIPLINE Australia.--[A Police Officer was charged with a breach of reg. 41 of the Police Regulations 1958 (Tas.) which prohibits misconduct against the "discipline" of the police force.] "Discipline' in this sense involves more than mere obedience to lawful orders. It is a wide concept and I have no doubt extends to conduct of a police officer when off duty so far as that conduct may effect his fitness to discharge duties as a police officer. Many of the powers of a Police Officer are exercised by him by virtue of the independent public office he holds and cannot be exercised on the responsibility of an person but himself. His duties are of a public nature and over a wide range of matters affecting the public he exercises original and not delegated authority. Discreditable conduct in his private life may therefore clearly affect his status and authority as a Police Officer in the discharge of his public duties and in his relations with the public."
Henry v. Ryan, (1963] Tas. S.R. 90, per Burbury, C.J., at p. 91.
16. A combined reading of the above definitions of the 'discipline' and 'indiscipline' leads us to conclude that one who is not disciplined is indisciplined. Misconduct may include the indiscipline, but indiscipline need l not necessarily be misconduct. Thus where a case is covered by professional indiscipline, it may be misconduct, but where a case is shrouded with unbecoming behaviour as a subordinate or as a boss or colleague or in relation to those with whom one interacts it is indiscipline.
17. The case of indiscipline is very much clear however, under the above quoted rule, as for as other cases are concerned, there is an ambiguity which requires to be resolved. As this rule authorises termination of service on the ground of misconduct, moral turpitude, inefficiency as well, and at the same time all these cases are also covered and regulated by the Cadet College Pallandri/Board Employees Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1996 hence apparent repugnancy has to be resolved. What we perceive from it is that in case of termination on the ground of indiscipline, no notice is required, but in other cases, as the misconduct is specifically included alongwith details of procedure while conducting proceedings of misconduct under the Cadet College Pallandri/Board Employees Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1996, even if an employee is removed on that ground, the proceedings have to be strictly conducted in accordance with the Cadet College Pallandri/Board Employees Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1996. If a competent authority orders compulsory retirement, removal/termination from service or dismissal from service, in consequence of inquiry under E&D Rules, the employee shall be given two months notice or two months salary in lieu thereof before the order becomes operative in view of Conditions of Service Rules, 1996. This is the only construction which can harmonies the application of the above rules.
18. We agree that no person can be condemned unheard and a notice for an action against a person is the natural right of the person and every law and rule has to be read in a manner that the natural law is to be read in it, unless the law or rule itself excludes notice before taking action. It is held in the case of Custodian of Evaruee Property AJ&K & another v. Fatima Bibi and 15 others [2003 SCR 88] that: "It is an admitted principle of law that principle of natural justice audi alteram partem is supposed to be the part of every enactment if its application has not been specifically excluded in it."
Similarly, in case Sardar Asif Mehmood Raza v. Abdul Khamid and 7 others [2004 SCR 298], it was held that: "It is a celebrated principle of law repeatedly laid down by all the Courts of subcontinent including this Court that principle of audi alteram partem shall be presumed to be part of every enactment until and unless its application has been specifically excluded in the relevant statute." Under Clause 3 of Rule 30 of the Cadet College Pallandri (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1996, as reproduced above, it is specifically stated that "no notice shall be required to be given in case of termination of service of an employee on disciplinary grounds". This notice stands excluded under rule in case of removal on the ground of indiscipline, and termination in this case is made on disciplinary grounds. Notwithstanding the specific exclusion of the notice, the indisciplined conduct of the respondent has been brought to his notice from time to time and a show-cause notice stating his indiscipline is also served upon him perhaps to warn him to improve his conduct. The Board has also considered his review petition against the order of his removal from service dated 14.7.2003 and then passed the order dated 5.3.2004.
In view of above discussion, the impugned order passed by the High Court is hereby set aside and appeal is accepted with costs.