' SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, J.--- The petitioner while working as Director of Agriculture (Economics and Marketing), Agriculture Department made a request for reemployment after superannuation of the said post to the Chief Minister vide his application dated 24-10-2007. The said request was allowed vide notification. Dated 1-11-2007 and it was directed that the petitioner be re-employed as Director of Agriculture (Economics and Marketing) Punjab, on contract, for a period of three years, in relaxation of re-employment Policy of Government of the Punjab, with effect from 10-4-2008. The said notification further stated that the terms and conditions of his contractual re-employment shall be settled separately. Thereafter, after superannuation, the petitioner joined the said post on 10-4-2008 as is evident from the Charge Report of the said date. However, vide impugned notification dated 10-4-2008 the services of the petitioner were terminated with immediate effect holding the petitioner entitled to draw one month's pay in lieu of notice.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was allowed to work as Director Agriculture (Economics and Marketing) on the basis of notification dated 1-11-2007, however, terms and conditions were never settled and, therefore, he was never given the option that his service will be terminated against payment of one month's pay in lieu of notice. The said condition has been wrongly applied to the case of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the termination of the petitioner is in violation of Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 and in support of the same has placed reliance on Naubahar Ali v. Vice-Chancellor and others 2010 PLC (C.S.)783, Muhammad Aslam v. Vice-Chairman and others 2010 PLC (C.S.) 266, Muhammad Saeed and 2 others v. Executive District Officer (Agriculture), Khanewal and another 2010 PLC (C.S.) 961 and New Jubilee Insurance Company Ltd. Karachi v. National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi PLD 1999 SC 1126.
4. Learned Law Officer frankly submitted that terms and conditions of the service of the petitioner under the contract were not settled as provided under notification dated 1-11-2007. However, he contends that termination of the petitioner is on the basis of Policy dated 10-4-2008 which states that re-employment of the retired officers/officials after retirement to be terminated with immediate effect. The policy however, extends one month's salary in lieu of the notice.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Petitioner was granted contractual re-employment vide notification dated 1-11-2007 by the Secretary, Agriculture Department which had to take effect from 10-4-2008. The said notification provides that the terms and conditions of the contractual re-employment of the petitioner shall be settled separately. This was never done and the petitioner took charge on. 10-4-2008. On the same day impugned notification dated 10-4-2008 was issued by the Secretary, Agriculture Department and the services of the petitioner were terminated with immediate effect against one month's pay in lieu of notice of one month's period.
7. The impugned notification of termination of services of the petitioner dated 10-4-2008 is a result of dictation under notification dated 10-4-2008 issued by the Services and General Administration Department, Government of the Punjab which states that the competent authority has desired that re-employment of the retired officers may be terminated with immediate effect.
8. The terms and conditions of the contractual, re-employment of IA the petitioner were never settled since notification dated 1-11-2007.
' Therefore, one month's pay in lieu of notice was never a condition settled between the parties. In the absence of the same, the said clause could not be pulled out of the bag at the last minute and slapped on the petitioner, depriving him of his right to due process.
9. In the absence of a contract, the petitioner had a right to be heard, before an adverse order terminating his service was passed. This principle of natural justice is in-built in Articles 4, 9 and 10- A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 and, therefore, cannot be taken to be a cosmetic requirement. Rule of law and due process are fundamental to any civilized system of governance and moreso in a democratic welfare State like Pakistan. Reliance is placed on Naubahar Ali v. Vice-Chancellor and others 2010 PLC (C.S.) 783, Muhammad Aslam v. Vice- Chairman and others 2010 PLC (C.S.) 266, Muhammad Saeed and 2 others v. Executive District Officer (Agriculture), Khanewal and another 2010 PLC (C.S.) 961 and New Jubilee Insurance Company Ltd. Karachi v. National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi PLD 1999 SC 1126.
10. Notifications dated 104-2008 issued by respondent No,4 and the Services and General Administration Department furnishes no reason why services of re-employed officials be terminated with immediate effect. The requirement of furnishing reasons ensures transparency and accountability of public institutions and makes them stronger. Unreasoned orders generate corruption and weaken institutions and slowly eat into the foundations of a healthy democracy.
Government cannot make policy and issue notifications which flout the fundamental C rights of citizens. Every policy, every action, every step taken by the government must be well thought out and within the constitutional framework. The best way to achieve good governance by the Provincial Government and public institutions is to furnish reasons and pass speaking orders. This requirement now has a legislative cover under section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
Reliance is placed on Messrs Airport Support Service v. The Airport Manager, Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, Karachi and others 1998 SCMR 2268, Liaqat Ali Memon and others v.
Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1994 SC 556, Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P. And another v. Muhammad Nawaz and another PLD 1996 SC 837, Rukhsar Ali and 11 others v.
Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary Education, Peshawar and 3 others 2003 PLC (C.S.) 1453, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation through Chairman and others v. Shahzad Farooq Malik and another 2004 SCMR 158, and Chairman/Managing Director, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and another v. Nisar Ahmed Bhutto 2005 SCMR 57.
11. For the above reasons, the impugned notification/order dated 10-4-2008 is set aside. Needless to say that respondent department is free to deal with the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and in accordance with principles highlighted in the above judgments.
12. For the above reasons, this petition is allowed and notification terminating the services of the petitioner dated 10-4-2008 is set aside.