HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.--- The backdrop of this Intra-Court Appeal is that the respondent Muhammad Mushtaq was appointed as Registrar of Government College University, Faisalabad in BS-19 for a period of three years vide notification, dated 11-2-2004, he assumed the charge, performed his duties and vide notification, dated 26-3-2005 his terms and conditions of service were notified, however, only after four days of issuance of the said notification, he was ousted from service through notification, dated 30-3-2005, causing a serious prejudice to the respondent, who invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The writ petition was contested by the present appellants, however, the writ was allowed and termination order of the respondent was set aside through judgment dated 3-6-2005, which is under challenge in the present appeal:
2. Learned counsel for the appellants argued the case at length and submits with vehemence that the learned Judge in Chamber travelled beyond the scope of jurisdiction resulting into serious miscarriage of justice, did not advert to the points raised in its true perspective and case-law referred by the appellants was not considered at all.
3. Learned counsel reiterated his arguments which were raised in the writ petition and relied upon the same judgments which were referred before the learned Judge in Chamber.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent stood behind the impugned judgment and relied on the same judgments which were made the basis of granting relief to the respondent by the learned Judge in Chamber.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Suffice it to refer para.9 of the reply filed by the present appellants in the writ, which shall be advantageous to reproduce as under:- "(9) That para No,9 is correct to the extent that notification dated 30th of March, 2005 has been issued but the remaining para. Is incorrect. There are certain allegations/complaints against the petitioner about his inefficiency his role for promotion of the bratheryism, polarization and illegal admissions made by him as per Annexures "C", "D" and "E". The petitioner was apprised of the same and counselling was made by the Vice-Chancellor but of no avail. He was given an opportunity of personal hearing on 14-1-2005, as per Annexures "F" and "F/1". The petitioner appeared before the Chancellor but could not deny the charges. However, the case remained under considerations of the respondent No,1 and ultimately on 30-3-2005 the services of the petitioners were dispensed with."
7. In addition to this, it shall also be important to reproduce para.3 read with ground (g) of the I.C.A., which are as under:- "(3) That it may quite pertinently be submitted here that during the above while, there have been complaints against the respondent in regard to his having promoted Bradri-ism, polarization and made illegal admissions vide Annexure "E" to the appellants' reply to the main writ petition, where for he was complained against by appellant No,2 to appellant No,1 and it was thus, only that the services of the respondent were dispensed with by the latter directly by dint of Notification. No, GS(B)8-9/2004-146, dated the 30th of March, 2005."
"(g) That the respondent has been a medium to promote Bradri-ism, polarization and a deliriquent in making illegal admissions in the University vide Annexure'"E" to the appellants' reply to the writ petition. Further, an aspersion of forging a document partnership deed relating to appellant No,2 and others was also cast upon the respondent in regard where to a criminal case was lodged against him vide case F.I.R. No,135 of 2005 registered with Police station Gulberg, District Faisalabad, by all of which facts he brought a bad name to the University where for he was not entitled to any relief from this Htinourable Court, for, he himself did not do equity and had come to it with unclean hands."
8. After going through the pleadings of the appellants before the learned Judge in Chamber, it shall not be difficult to arrive at the conclusion that the respondent was terminated from service on the basis of some allegations. When this practical situation is evident from the record, then the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan shall come to the rescue of the respondent, which is reported as Muhammad Amjad v. WAPDA 1998 PSC 337, wherein it is held by the apex Court that even in case of a contract employee's termination if some stigma attaches, then without resorting to the procedure of regular inquiry the employee cannot be non-suited.
9. In the present case even today, the allegations levelled against the respondents specifically mentioning in the paras. Of reply to the writ petition as referred above are not disputed then it was obligatory on the part of the appellants establishment to afford a fair chance to the respondent to defend himself and that too through the course of regular inquiry where he must have been associated but this aspect is altogether ignored by the present appellants while dealing with the case.
10. The learned Judge in Chamber not only discussed each and every aspect agitated by the appellants in the impugned judgment in depth rather relied upon the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan like Khawaja Ghulam Sarwar v. Pakistan through the General Manager, P.W.R. Lahore PLD 1962 SC 142, Pakistan and others v. Public-at-Large and others PLD 1987 SC 304, X.R. Azar, Deputy Chief Engineer, West, North-Western Railway Lahore and others v.
The Federation of Pakistan and another PLD 1958 (W.P.), Lah. 185, Commissioner Income Tax, East Pakistan v. Fazal-ur-Rehman PLD 1964 SC 410, Province of East Pakistan and another v. Noor Ahmad and another PLD 1964 SC 451, PIAC through its Chairman v. Nasir Jamal Malik and others 2001 SCMR 934, Pakistan State Oil Company Limited v. M. Akram Khan and others 2004 PLC (C.S.) 992 and Farasat Hussain and others v. Pakistan National Shipping Corporation 2004 SCMR 1874.
11. In para.11 of the impugned judgment the learned Judge in Chamber very ably distinguished the judgments referred by the present appellants and then accepted the writ petition.
12. The ratio in all the judgments referred by the learned Judge in Chamber in respect of respondents' claim is further endorsed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Arshad Jamal v. N.-W.F.P. Forest Development Corporation and others 2004 SCMR 468 and PIA v.
Nadeem Murtaza Khan 2007 PLC (C.S.) 334.
13. Viewing the- case from all angles, we could not find any illegality or any infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Judge in Chamber. The Intra-Court Appeal being devoid of any force is dismissed.
14. Before parting with this judgment, taking the advantage from, a judgment, dated 11-12-2008 passed by the apex Court in Civil Appeal No,558 of 2008 (Shahid Hayat v. Federation), we would direct the present appellants to allow the respondent to serve for a period of 1 year, 10 months and 14 days equivalent to the interrupted period of his service from 20-3-2005 to 13-2-2007 (the time of expiry of his contract), as the denial to the respondent of his right to actively serve the University without any fault on his part is established, which brought humiliation and suffering to the respondent.