Through the present constitutional petition, Habib Ahmad Ghuman petitioner has called in question order dated 10.4.2008, passed by Respondent No, 2 whereby his contractual re- employment was terminated with immediate effect.
2. Briefly the facts leading to the filing of this constitutional petition are that the petitioner joined the police department as ASI on 18.3.1970 and earned step-wise promotion and lastly he was promoted to the rank of Superintendent of Police in BS-18 vide order dated 3.3.2006. The petitioner was retired from service on 4.4.2006 hereafter in recognition of the services rendered by the petitioner in the department particularly that he earned a good name being an honest officer, DPO Vehari vide his memo No, 13076 dated 15.3.2006 addressed to the Regional Police Officer, Multan recommended that the petitioner be got re-employed by moving his case through proper channel. The R.P.O. in turn vide his Letter No, 1184/E-1 dated 24.3.2006 addressed to the Inspector General of Police, Punjab requested that in view of the satisfaction shown on working of the petitioner and the fact that he achieved dynamic administration in the department, recommended his case for retention in service for further period by the sweet discretion of the competent authority. The Government of the Punjab, Services & General Administration Department under the explicit authority and orders of the Governor, Punjab vide Notification No, SO(S-H)2-2/2007-H dated 5.10.2007 re-employed the petitioner on contract for a period of three years in relaxation of re-employment policy of Government of the Punjab. In view of the aforesaid notification Inspector General of Police, Punjab vide order dated 26.10.2007 posted the petitioner as SP Regional Investigation, Region No, 5 Multan against a vacancy where he took over the charge on 29.10.2007 where after the services of the petitioner were terminated vide notification dated 10.4.2008, hence the present constitutional petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the re-employment contract of service of the petitioner has been terminated without issuing him any show-cause notice which is against the natural principle of justice. He further submits that the State actions in contractual matters can be reviewed and referred Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi etc. v. State of U.P. and others (AIR 1991 Supreme Court 537).
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the available record.
There is no denying the fact that the petitioner was retired from Government service as Superintendent of Police after attaining the age of superannuation where after he was reemployed on contract for a period of three years vide notification dated 5.10.2007. Clause (xi) of terms and conditions of contractual reemployment is relevant which is reproduced below:- "TENURE Three years with effect from 29.10.2007 to 28.10.2010. However, he will hold office during the pleasure of the Government and his services are liable to termination at any time without assigning any reason thereof."
The petitioner joined the re-employment service by accepting the terms and conditions of the contract wherein it was specifically mentioned that the tenure of his service shall be three years Which is liable to be terminated without assigning any reason. Subsequently, the services of the petitioner were terminated as it is the prerogative of the Government which has specifically been mentioned in the order dated 28.1.2007. Under the aforesaid condition, the Government of the Punjab was not obliged to issue the petitioner a show-cause notice, as such, the impugned order, terminating the contractual services of the petitioner, is just, fair and in accordance with the policy of the Government, as such, warrants no interference by this Court in the constitutional jurisdiction.
The case law referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not help to the petitioner in any manner as the facts of that case are different from the case in hand.
5. For what has been discussed above, I find no merit in this constitutional petition which is hereby dismissed inlimine.