PERVAIZ INAYAT MALIK, J. --- Through this single order, I intend. To dispose of following writ petitions, which involve common questions of law and facts:---
(i) Writ Petition No. 6289/08: "Muhammad Imran Kha,n etc. v. Government of Punjab."
(ii) Writ Petition No. 1761/08: "Shah Faisal, etc. v. Government of Punjab."
(i.e) Writ Petition No 6305/2008: "Ghulam Akbar, etc. v. Government of Punjab."
(iv) Writ Petition No. 4197/2008: "Shabbir Hussain v. Government of Punjab."
2. Briefly stated facts as those emerge out of these petitions are that petitioners were appointed as Junior Clerks, Naib Qasids etc. In the Prosecution Branch of the Government of the Punjab, which order stood implemented. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them on the allegations of joining service on the basis of bogus appointment letters. Suddenly, the services of the petitioners were terminated vide the impugned orders, by invoking provisions of contract policy, by giving them one month's notice.
3. It is inter alia contended that the services of the petitioners were terminated, without observing codal formalities; that initially disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them for securing appointment on the basis of bogus appointment letters, however, their services were terminated by invoking the provisions of contract policy; that the termination letter itself is a proof that the allegations against the petitioners are false. It is added that had the appointments of the petitioners been bogus, the departmental authority could dispense with their service on the basis of show-cause notice initially, issued to them; that no inquiry was held. It is with vehemence argued that the appointment orders of the petitioners are genuine, having been issued by competent authority, after observing all codal formalities and that termination of their services is tainted with malice and mala fide.
4. Conversely, learned Additional Prosecutor General Punjab as well as learned Assistant. Advocate General, with vehemence opposed the submissions made at bar by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that termination orders were passed perfectly in accordance with law, by competent authority.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. There is no denying to the fact that initially disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioners on the allegations of joining service, on the basis of bogus appointment letters and formal show-cause notices were also .Issued to all of them, to which they submitted replies denying the charges contained therein, however, without concluding the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law, by taking U-turn the Additional Prosecutor General proceeded to terminate services of the petitioners by invoking relevant clause of the contract policy. By now it is well- settled proposition of law that against its employees by levelling certain allegations, it cannot have recourse to some other procedure unless the allegations are withdrawn specifically, besides service of an employee cannot be terminated without assigning reasons which are lacking in the orders impugned herein. Admittedly, no regular inquiry has been held. The petitioners have also disputed competence or Additional Prosecutor General. The matter is, therefore, remanded to the learned Prosecutor General with a direction to him to personally attend to the grievance of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, of course after providing a fair opportunity to the petitioners of defending themselves. These petitions are allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. These, petitioners shall be reinstated in service, however,' the question of payment of back benefits would defend upon outcome 'of inquiry or proceedings undertaken by the learned Prosecutor General in accordance with law.
7. With these observations, these petitions are disposed of.