' HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.--- The petitioner who was appointed as Assistant Manager (Operation) under LESCO through order dated 3-1-2006 joined the assignment; performed his duties; however, through statement of allegations dated 17-7-2007 certain allegations were levelled against the petitioner and statement of allegations under Removal From Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 was issued; inquiry was conducted and finally on 13-3-2008 the competent authority closed the case meaning thereby that nothing was found against the petitioner. However, through order dated 28-3-2008 an inquiry committee was constituted to probe into the causes of fatal accident to James Masih, Lineman Grade-11, Narang Mandi LESCO wherein the present petitioner was also involved. The inquiry was started but during the course of inquiry an office order was issued on 2- 4-2008 whereby the petitioner was terminated with immediate effect on account of misconduct.
2. As the petitioner was on contract and as such could not invoke the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal and filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is being made a subject of discrimination, victimization and the impugned order is passed in colourable exercise of powers exercised by the competent authority. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that practically the petitioner was involved in so many illegalities and irregularities of serious nature, he was involved in so many cases. However, the respondent- Company took the lenient view on different occasions and closed the inquiry proceedings against him as is reflected from the record but the petitioner did not stop his misdoing and as such the respondent had no other alternate except to terminate his contract and to say goodbye to him.
3. Arguments heard; record perused.
4. There is no cavil from the proposition that a contract employee cannot claim to be retained in service for indefinite period over and above the contract time but simultaneously it is well-settled law laid down by the apex Court that if the termination order is of a simplicitor termination then of course the aggrieved person cannot agitate against simple termination but if the termination order attaches stigma as in the present case then the employee should not have been condemned unheard.
5. In a reported case Muhammad Amjad v. WAPDA 1998 PSC 337 the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan held that, "even a contract employee cannot be terminated without the recourse of regular inquiry if his termination is on account of some misconduct." In other case of a WAPDA employee reported as Aleem Jaffer v. WAPDA 1998 SCM R 1445 it is held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that, "if the termination order conveys a message of any stigma, the employee cannot be ousted from service without resorting to the procedure of Efficiency and Discipline Rules."
6. Admittedly in the present case the plain language of the termination order conveys a clear message that the petitioner was terminated on the basis of misconduct and even the learned counsel for the respondent argued with vehemence that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct on different occasions but on each and every occasion the petitioner was let off purely on humanitarian grounds but finally in the case of accident of James Masih, he was found involved and resultantly, the petitioner was terminated in view of his misconduct. When examined all these circumstances, no other conclusion can be drawn except that the petitioner was of course made a subject of different allegations and particularly of accident of James Masih and an inquiry was started. However, without concluding the inquiry and without giving him a fair chance to defend, an easy way to get rid of the petitioner was adopted and the impugned order was passed.
7. It is also well-settled law laid down by the apex Court in different cases that, "if the procedure of regular inquiry is commenced against an employee but during the course of inquiry, resorting to a shorter procedure of show-cause notice without letting the procedure of regular inquiry to its logical conclusion, the shorter procedure of show-cause notice cannot be termed a justified one.
8. In the present case from all angles it is noticed that firstly an inquiry was ordered to be conducted and during the course of inquiry the impugned termination order was passed without concluding the inquiry proceedings meaning thereby that the petitioner was not afforded fair chance to defend himself and secondly the termination order which was passed might be in haste attaches a stigma, which cannot hold the field in view of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan (supra).
' Resultantly, the impugned order is set aside being a violation of settled law, the petitioner is reinstated into service with all back-benefits. However, the competent authority is at liberty to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law.
' The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.