' ABDUL SATTAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--- This appeal arises against an order dated 11-2-2006, whereby the appointment order of the appellant has been cancelled retrospectively and also against the order dated 22-2-2006, whereby departmental appeal of the appellant has been rejected, with the prayer that on acceptance of this appeal, the impugned orders may be set aside and the appellant be reinstated into service with all back-benefits. Any other remedy which this Tribunal deems fit may also be granted in favour of the appellant.
2. The facts of the case necessary for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are that the appellant was appointed against P.T.C. Post on contract basis vide order dated 10-12-2005. She assumed the charge of the post and started performing her duties. Respondent No,3 on 11-2-2006 on the direction of Political Agent, North Waziristan Agency, cancelled the appointment order of the appellant from the date of her contract with immediate effect. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed her departmental appeal/representation on 15-2 2006; which was rejected on 22-2-2006, hence this appeal.
3. Notices were sent to the respondents. They turned up and contested the appeal by filing a joint written reply. Various legal and factual pleas were raised. It was also inter alia alleged that the appellant has got no cause of action; that the appellant is estopped by her own conduct to bring the instant appeal, that the appellant was appointed as P.T.C. Teacher in Community School on the directions of the Director of Education FATA and that her appointment order was cancelled on the directions of Political Agent, North Waziristan Agency. No replication was filed in rebuttal by the appellant.
4. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. The prime contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that codal formalities were not observed while cancelling the appointment order of the appellant, that neither charge was framed nor communicated to the appellant with statement of allegations; that framing of charge is not only a formality but a mandatory requirement of law. Reliance was placed on 2000 SCM R 1743. He next argued that no reason, whatsoever, was assigned while cancelling the appointment order of the appellant. Reliance was placed on 2007-SCM R 330. Lastly, it was argued that removal of the appellant from retrospective date is illegal. Reliance was placed on 1993 PLC (C.S.) 1755. As such the impugned order being fanciful and bad in law is liable to be set aside.
6. In reply it was urged that the appellant was appointed on contract basis and that in the appointment order, it was clearly mentioned that her services were liable to be terminated without any notice and as such the services of the appellant being a contract employee were rightly dispensed with.
7. The Tribunal holds that the claim of the appellant is bona fide. Codal formalities were not observed while cancelling the appointment order of the appellant by the authority. Charge was neithei framed nor communicated to the appellant with statement of allegations. Framing of charge and communicating the same with statement of allegations was not only a formality but was a mandatory requirement of law which was to be followed. 2000 SCM R 1743. No reason whatsoever, has been assigned while dispensing with the services of the appellant. Her services were dispensed with in slipshod manner without any enquiry. Furthermore, the cancellation of the appointment order with retrospective effect is also not tenable. In the circumstances, the appellant has made out a case for indulgence of the Tribunal. Accordingly this appeal is accepted, the impugned orders are set aside and the appellant is reinstated into service. However, the intervening period be treated as leave of the kind due.
' The order shall also dispose of two other connected appeals bearing No,231 and 232 of 2006 filed by Mst. Shamila and Nimatullah appellants respectively in the same manner involving common question of law and facts. No order as to costs. File be consigned to the record room.