Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 16.5.2011 passed by Respondent No, 3, whereby the petitioner was suspended, and inquiry was initiated against him in terms of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline & Accountability Act, 2006 (PEEDA Act, 2006). The petitioner claims that he is a Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of Zoology with Post Doctoral research at Muresk institute of Agriculture, Curtin University of Technology, Australia. The petitioner has headed the department of Zology and Dean, Faculty of Sciences & Technology of Respondent No, 1 and also performed his duties as Professor of Zoology, King Saud University Saudi Arabia and also acted as Vice Chancellor of Respondent No,
1. Respondent No, 3 has a personal grievance against petitioner being his competitor, a litigation between petitioner and Respondent No, 3 remain in progress for appointment as Vice Chancellor. Respondent No, 3 was appointed as Vice Chancellor and after his appointment he started to create hurdles in due performance of petitioner's duties. The petitioner claims that impugned order is an outcome of malice and personal grudge of Respondent No, 3 against the petitioner. He challenged the authority of syndicate of Respondent No, 1 and asserts that quorum required for passing of any order or delegation of powers to Respondent No, 3 is without jurisdiction and as such any delegation of authority in favour of Respondent No, 3 is without lawful authority and without jurisdiction.
2. Notices were issued to respondents. The respondents were served and represented by Mr. Ziak- ur-Rehman Addl. Advocate General, Mr. Muhammad Javed Pansota Advocate Malik Saeed Hassan Advocate also marked present on 23.6.2011 on watching brief.
3. This case was fixed for hearing on 22.7.2011 and was adjourned to 28.7.2011 but no one was present on behalf of respondents. Today again none appeared on behalf of respondents and as such they are proceeded against ex-parte.
4. The grievance of petitioner is that he being the employee of Respondent No, 1 could be proceeded in accordance with law. Government College University Faisalabad was established under Ordinance, 2002 (LXX of 2002) and under Section 2(iv) of Ordinance 2002 "Authority means any of the authorities of the university specified in the Ordinance. Section 2(XIX) "Syndicate" means Syndicate of the University.
5. Section 20(1) of the G.C. University Faisalabad, Ordinance 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Ordinance, 2002) provides the formation of Syndicate.
6. Section 20(2) provides the numbers of members to constitute the quorum for a meeting of the Syndicate shall be eight.
7. Section 20(3) shows that members of the syndicate other than ex-officio members, shall hold office for three years.
8. Qualifications of members of syndicate is provided in Section 20 (i) to (Xii).
"Section 21. Powers and duties of the Syndicate.:--
(1) ----------------
(ii) ---------------- (XXVII) delegate any of its powers to an authority or officer or a committee or sub- committee; and"
9. The arguments of learned counsel for petitioner is that very meeting of Syndicate dated 14.5.2011 is illegal due to insufficient quorum and as such order for delegation of powers to Respondent No, 3 is without lawful authority and as such the impugned order is void abinitio.
10.25th Meeting of Syndicates, G.0 University, Faisalabad was held on 14.5.2011 proceedings of which are available at page-No, 66 of the petition. In this meeting Syndicate has delegated powers in favour of Respondent No 3 for initiation of inquiry and taking other actions against petitioner.
Minutes of meeting shows that 9 persons were in attendance on 14.5.2011. Member at Sr. No, 2 is Prof. Dr. Ch. Jamil Anwar, the alleged nominee of Higher Education Commission, Islamabad, member at Sr. No, 8 is alleged nominee of Higher Educe don Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and member at Sr. No, 9 Muhammad Akram is Registrar, GC University, Faisalabad.
11.Person at Sr. No, 9 is not the part of meeting. 8 members shown to attend the meeting under Section 20-1 (v) of the Ordinance 2002. One member of Syndicate should be Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Finance Department or his nominee not below the rank of additional Secretary whereas member mentioned at Sr. No, 2 Professor Dr. Ch. Jamil Anwar is a retired Professor of University of Punjab and could not be termed the nominee of Chairman University Grant Commission, Islamabad and as such his participation in the meeting is against Ordinance, 2002. Likewise Rana Munawar Hussain claimed to be nominee of Higher Education Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore is incompetent in terms of Section 20-1(ii) of the Ordinance, 2002 which provides that permanent member of Syndicate will be Secretary Education Department or his nominee not below the rank of Additional Secretary. Admittedly Rana Munawar Hussain is not Additional Secretary or equal to this rank and as such the composition of committee of Syndicate as per Section 20(4), is prima-facie not according to Ordinance, 2002 and quorum for convening the meeting was in attendance.
12.Without commenting further on the merits of case which may prejudice the case of either party as inquiry is yet to be completed, it is opined that delegation of powers by Syndicate on 14.5.2011 to Respondent No, 3 is without lawful authority, consequent upon order dated 16.5.2011 has become without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
13.Respondent No, 1, however, will remain within his rights to initiate fresh inquiry against petitioner in accordance with law of the alleged acts if he thinks fit in the circumstances of the case.
14.This order will not be termed as exoneration of petitioner from the charges which has to be thrashed out by the competent authority after completing the inquiry. In case University decides to initiate fresh proceedings against petitioner, Respondent No, 1 will convene legal meeting of Syndicate before taking any action and petitioner will be allowed to raise all legal objections available to him in accordance with law during the conduct of inquiry.
15.In view of above, the impugned order is declared without lawful authority and petition is allowed.
16.There is no order as to costs.