SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, C J.---The petitioner joined T&T as Assistant Divisional Engineer (B-17) in the year, 1988 and was promoted as Divisional Engineer (B-18) in year, 1993. His services were studded with excellent performance. A charge-sheet on false and flimsy charges as claimed by petitioner was issued for improper supervision of certain maintenance works executed by his attached officer. As a result, the Inquiry Officer proposed minor penalty for sharing responsibility.
2. The respondent No, 2 being designated authority under RSO 2000 (adopted by PTCL) without application of mind and ignoring finding of the Inquiry Officer inflicted the penalty of removal from service vide order dated 27-11-2006. As per appeal rules and provisions of Rule 9 of the RSO, 2000, the petitioner preferred an appeal dated 11-12-2006 to the designated Appellate Authority, respondent No,1 . The Appellate Authority set aside petitioner's removal from service and directed his reinstatement on 21-4-2007. The petitioner reported for duty to the respondent No,2's Principal Staff Officer for posting order but since then is waiting. Sought direction to respondent No,2 to implement and execute the appellate order passed by the designated Appellate Authority in its letter and spirit.
3. The respondents filed report and parawise comments raising objections that legal proceedings can only be filed by or against natural or legal persons and not against designations or titles. The petitioner has arrayed the president PTCL as respondent No,2 who is neither a legal person nor statutory office; PTCL does not perform any functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province nor is a local authority or creation of any statute, but is a limited company having no statutory rules therefore, its employees are governed by principle of master and servant is attracted.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
5. Petitioner was charge-sheeted and inquiry was held. Minor penalty was proposed by the Inquiry Officer. Notwithstanding respondent No,2, being authority under RSO, 2000, imposed the penalty of removal from service on 27-11-2006. Departmental Appeal in terms of Rule 9, RSO, 2000 was preferred before respondent No,1 . The removal was set aside and direction was issued for reinstatement on 21-4-2007.
6. In fact this writ petition is seeking implementation of the order of Appellate Authority of PTCL.
Objections in regard to maintainability of this writ petition, for the reason that regulations are non- statutory, are in fact not directly in issue in this case, yet in the respondent organization the Federal Government has a controlling share and interest and with refrence to the pronouncement of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of "Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation, through Director General, Islamabad v. Muhammad Akram Alizai, Deputy Controller, PBC, Islamabad PLD 2002 SC 1079, this Court may examine the grievance urged before it.
7. Government of Pakistan, Cabinet Secretariat Establishment Division in its notification dated 21st August, 2000, designated officers before whom representations against order under section 3 of the RSO shall be preferred:-- ' FOR PERSONS IN CORPORATION SERVICE S. No.Classes of persons Officers 1.Holders of posts in Basic Pay Scales 17 to 19 and equivalent.Secretary of the concerned Ministry or Division.
2.Holders of posts in Basic Pay Scale 16 and equivalent.Secretary of the concerned Ministry or Division.
3.Holders of posts in Basic Pay Scales 1 to 15 and equivalentAn officer next above the officer or authority against whose order representation is preferred.
' Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000) has defined persons in corporation service under section 2(c), which is re-produced for facility reference:-- "Person in corporation service" means every person in the employment of a corporation, corporate body, authority, a statutory body or other organization or institutions set up, established, owned, managed or controlled by the Federal Government, or by or under any law for the time being in force or a body or organization in which the Federal Government has a controlling share or interest and includes the Chairman and the Managing Director, and the holder of any other office therein; and"
' From the above it is absolutely clear that the petitioner, an employee in grade-18 has competently filed a representation before Secretary of the concerned Ministry/Division, which competently allowed, under section 9 of the RSO-2000. An appeal under section 10 is provided to an aggrieved person to Federal Service Tribunal. Section 11 have overriding effect on all other laws, notwithstanding, anything contrary in the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the rule made thereunder and any other law for time being in force. Section 12 also take care of the proceedings initiated on the commencement of this Ordinance to be governed by the provisions of this Ordinance and an examination of definition of any employee of the corporation, I am of the view that definition under section 2(c) of Removal from Service fully covers the petitioner. Combined reading of sections 9, 10, 11 and 12 indicates an inbuilt mechanism, a code in itself. Section 10 provides remedy to an aggrieved person, which is reproduced below:--
10. Appeal.--Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, by any final order under section 9 may, within thirty days of the order, prefer an appeal to the Federal Service Tribunal established under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 (LXX of 1973)."
8. If respondent-Authority was dissatisfied with the Appellate order, a right was available to it, to seek its remedy provided under RSO. By not invoking the remedy available under the law, the judgment of the Appellate Authority has been accepted. Respondent, thus, has no escape in law except to give effect to the order of Appellate Authority by its implementation.
9. Respondents learned counsel however, on conclusion of arguments, placed on record a Notification No,S.R.O.280(1)/2008 dated 12th March, 2008 providing exemption to the employees of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Limited, from all the provisions of the Ordinance w.e.f, the date of privatization of P.T.C.L. This belated effort may not rescue the respondent; firstly the petitioner had already acquired a valuable right in his favour which cannot be taken away by issuance of notification giving retrospective effect and secondly proceeding initiated against the petitioner under RSO, on issuance of this notification, will be without jurisdiction and nullity calling for automatic reinstatement.
10. Non-implementation of the order of Secretary is not only an insubordination but is in sheer violation to the principle of hierarchy, which not only uproots the principle of rule of law, justice and acceptability, but cause sheer frustration to officials, deprived by such acts. Inaction of respondent No,2, cannot be seen with favour. Respondent No,2 is directed to comply with the order of the respondent No,1 within a period of one month. Writ petition stands allowed.