' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CJ.--- It is an admitted fact that petitioner Malik Ahmed Khan was removed from service on the charge of inefficiency. The Returning Officer accepted his nomination papers and the District Returning Officer on accepting the appeal filed by the respondents rejected the nomination papers submitted by him vide order dated 2-8-2005. The learned High Court maintained the order of the District Returning Officer.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner's case is not covered under section 152(1)(h) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001, because he was not removed from service on the grounds of moral turpitude. However, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that as he failed to obey the order given by a superior, therefore, he is disqualified to contest the election.
3. The learned Deputy Attorney-General supported the arguments of the learned counsel for the caveator. However, the learned Additional Advocate-General conceded that petitioner's case is not covered under section 152(1)(h) of the Ordinance.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. We are of the considered opinion that mere removal of a person on the ground of inefficiency would not involve the element of moral turpitude, therefore, the learned High Court as well as the District Returning Officer may have not interfered in the order of the Returning. Officer.
5. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed, the impugned judgment' as well as the judgment of the District Returning Officer is set aside. The petitioner is allowed to contest the election for the office of General Councillor from Union Council, Kandiwal District Chiniot. The Returning Officer is directed to complete pre-poll process and include the name of the petitioner in the election schedule to be held on 25-8-2005 so that he may participate in the poll in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.