Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Elementary School Educator (ESE) on contract basis on 18.12.2009. After almost a year, the petitioner was served with Show Cause Notice dated 3.12.2010 requiring him to show-cause why her services should not be terminated under Clause 13 of the Contract. The Show Cause Notice alleged that the educational documents of the petitioner were bogus and forged. Petitioner received the Show Cause Notice on 10.12.2010 but found out that the impugned order had already been passed on 8.12.2010. Hence, the petitioner was not heard or given the opportunity of filing reply of the said show-cause notice.
2. Learned Law Officer submits that the documents of the petitioner were forged, therefore, the impugned order was issued but has not controverted the date of receipt of notice to the petitioner.
3. Be that as it may, the respondent department cannot proceed under Clause 13 unless the petitioner is granted an opportunity of being heard and an occasion to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice especially when the allegation in the Show Cause Notice pertain to bogus and forged credentials of the petitioner. The entire proceedings and the impugned order are in violation of Articles 4 & 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 which guarantee due process and fair trial to the petitioner and are, therefore, set aside.
4. Respondents are, however, free to issue fresh Show Cause Notice, grant an opportunity of hearing and then pass an order in accordance with law. Reliance is placed on Naubahar Ali v. Vice Chancellor, University of the Punjab Quaid-e-Azam Campus, Lahore and another (PLJ 2011 Lahore 186) and Muhammad Saeed and 2 others v. Executive District Officer (Agriculture), Khanewal and another (2010 PLC (CS) 961).
5. For the above reasons, this petition is allowed and the impugned order of termination is set aside.