' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, petitioner herein, has sought leave to appeal through this petition under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, against the judgment, dated 17-9-2002, passed by Lahore Bench of Federal Service Tribunal, in an appeal filed by the respondent against his termination from service.
2. The petitioner, vide\ order, dated 12-12-1996, terminated the service of respondent, vide order, dated 12-12-1990. The service of respondent was terminated without assigning any reason and issue of , show-cause notice, therefore, he challenged the legality of the order of his termination in Lahore High Court, Lahore, in its constitutional jurisdiction pending disposal of the writ petition, section 2-A was inserted in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and in consequence thereto, the High Court, in the light of judgment of this Court "Muhammad Afzal v. Karachi Electricity Supply Corporation (Civil Appeal No,1913 of 1997) decided on 31-3-1998, dismissed the writ petition being not maintainable. The respondent then filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which succeeded and the Tribunal, vide impugned judgment, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of termination of respondent and directed his reinstatement in service.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondent was appointed for political consideration in utter disregard of the rules, therefore, he would have no right to continue and mere technical defect of not issuing the show-cause notice, would not be sufficient to set aside the order of termination. The learned counsel added that the appeal of the respondent before the Service Tribunal was hopelessly barred by time but the Tribunal condoned the delay without a sufficient cause.
4.. Notwithstanding the political consideration for the appointment of respondent as stated by the learned counsel, the real question before the Tribunal for determination would be the legal sanction behind the order of termination of his service and the learned counsel has not been able to satisfy us that the procedure provided under the rules for termination of service of an employee of Corporation, was followed before passing the order in question. This is a well-settled law that no one should be condemned unheard and if an order adverse to the interest of a person is passed behind his back and without providing him an opportunity of hearing, the order is illegal. There can be no departure to the rule of law that in absence of specific rules governing the service of a person in an Organization, an incumbent of a post in the said Organization before an action is taken in respect of his terms and conditions of service, is entitled to the right of hearing in the light of principle of natural justice, therefore, the proper course for the respondent would be to issue show-cause notice to the respondent and conduct an inquiry to ascertain the question of his fitness to retain in service instead of straightaway termination of his service. The order of termination of service passed in departure to the rules of service, of the Organization and in violation to the principle of natural justice, would definitely render it illegal and no exception can be taken to the judgment of Tribunal by virtue of which the order of termination of service of respondent was set aside and he was reinstated in service. The contention of learned counsel that appeal before the Service Tribunal was time barred, has also no substance as the objection of the petitioner in this behalf was not considered valid by the Tribunal and we find no justification to interfere in the discretion exercised by the Tribunal.
5. For the reasons given above, we find no substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. Leave is refused.