The petitioners are contract appointee Inspectors working, in the counter terrorism department ("CTD") of the Provincial Government. They were issued warning letters by the S.P./Administration on 12.09.2011, 17.09.2011, 24.09.2011' and 16.09.2011 requiring each of them to improve their performance which was found unsatisfactory. The notices do not specify the type of deficiency or default in rendering of service by the petitioners. Three months later on 22.12.2011 the services of the petitioners have by the impugned order been terminated on the ground that their performance is unsatisfactory and which failed to improve despite the grant of three months' time.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that notwithstanding the petitioners are contract/temporary employees, nevertheless they have a right to be confronted with the allegation on the basis of which their services have been terminated. In the present case, dissatisfaction with and non-improvement of service are vague and general allegations which are insufficient to justify termination in the eye of law. He refers to Aleem Jaffar, Ex-Line Superintendent, WAPDA Lahore Vs. WAPDA through its Chairman Lahore and 2 others (1998 SCM R 1445), The Secretary, Gout. of the Punjab, and others Vs. Riaz-ulHaq (1997 SCM R 1552) and Muhammad Amjad Vs. The Chief Engineer WAPDA and another (1998 PSC 337).
3. Learned Addl, A. G. submits that the petitioners were given hearing and sufficient, notice to improve their performance before their termination. He is however, unable to specify from the record the default or deficiency of the petitioners which led to premature termination of their contracts of service.
4. Under law even temporary employees have certain basic rights. The petitioners are specialized officers dealing with serious crimes, including, countering terrorism. The Contract Appointment Policy, 2004 of the Provincial Government visualizes in Clause 17 thereof that contract appointees to be served with notice of allegations prior to taking adverse action based on cause. The petitioners have legal rights arising from the said policy and the foregoing precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As noted above the termination order of the petitioners are unsubstantiated and vague. In the eye of law these are therefore arbitrary and cannot sustain.
5. The petitioners shall report back on duty on 07.03.2012 but shall not claim remuneration for the intervening period after their termination on the principle of no pay without work. Also temporary employees who have not rendered service during the said period, they are not entitled to remuneration for the same.
6. Consequent upon setting aside of the impugned termination orders, the respondents are at liberty to take action against the petitioners after confronting them in writing with the respective allegation on the basis of which their services are threatened to be dispensed with. The respondents shall pass a reasoned order after providing the petitioners with an opportunity of hearing and defence.
7. Petition disposed of.