' SHEZADA MAZHAR,. J.--- In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged his termination of service contract order dated 9-8-2012 (impugned order).
2. Brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed at the post of Project Director for , the . "Purchase of Equipment, Furnishing, Curriculum Development and Training of Pakistan Institute of Fashion and Design (PIED) Lahore" vide Memorandum dated 14-1-2010 for one (1) year extendable on yearly basis up to the completion of the project. Petitioner's contract was renewed twice and lastly it was extended with effect from 16-1-2012 up to 15-1-2013. On 9-8-2012 the petitioner was served with the impugned order which has been challenged in the present writ petition.
3. The case of the petitioner is that although the termination was made with 'a one (1) month notice, however the contract has been terminated with a stigma and the petitioner has not been allowed to explain his case nor any show cause notice was issued to him as such petitioner's contract of service could not be terminated. In fact respondent No,2 directed the petitioner to make payment to a contractor, who provided air conditioners allegedly for the project, however petitioner did not release the payment as the said contractor did, not fulfill the requirement of the agreement of supply.. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been awarded major penalty without holding regular departmental enquiry and .Has been condemned unheard. In support of his contentions, the petitioner relied Upon Muhammad Amjad v. The Chief Engineer, WAPDA and others (1998 PSC 337), Abdul Qayyum v. D.G. Project Management Organization, JS HQ, Rawalpindi and 2 others [2003 PLC (C.S.) 353], Province of Sindh through Secretary Education, Government of Sindh, Karachi and 3 others v. Miss, Saima Bano and others (2003 PLC (C.S.) 36S] and Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and another v. Gohar Riaz (2004 SCMR 1662).
4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent No,2 submits that the utilization of budgetary releases and amounts surrendered for each year has not been satisfactory. In view of heavy amount of 122 million surrendered at the end of the year 2011-2012 out of total allocation of Rs,143 million, the Secretary Commerce constituted a three (3) members committee and advised them to investigate the circumstances leading to surrender of PSDP funds, fix responsibility and suggest action. The committee finalized its findings and records and submitted the same to the Secretary Commerce on 31-7-2012. Learned counsel also referred to the table of surrendered amount which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference; Amounts Surrendered from 201Q-13 {{TABLE}} SerialFinancial YearBudget (Rs.In Million)
1. Approved UtilizedSurrendered
2. 2010-11 229.236 85.691143.236
3. 2011-12 180.000 52.590121.779 4, 2012-13 143.780 16.214127.557 {{TABLE}} ' and submits that the delay in execution of the project, despite availability of funds, is adversely impacting the academic activities of the over 800 students. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner exercising the authority vested in him got a cheque of Rs,4,466,687 issued from AGPR and for the said purpose signed the invoice of supplier as endorsement for release of payment. The cheque was issued on 30-5-2013. However the petitioner kept the cheque in his custody without intimating the supplier. Further it was agreed during a meeting of Implementation Committee held on 26-6-2012, that the petitioner will release the cheque. However, despite the Implementation Committee's decision the cheque was not delivered to the suppliers. Learned counsel for respondent No, 2 also placed on record letter dated 6-7-2012 whereby the petitioner delivered the cheque dated 30-5-2012, which was valid only up to 30-6-2012, to the supplier on 6-7-2012 against a direction/request of respondent No,2 dated 30-5-2012 to show, the negligence and insubordination of the petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that sub-committee of the Implementation Committee concluded that the Project Direct& (the petitioner) had become a part of the problem rather than being a part of the solution and therefore prayed that the instant writ petition may kindly be dismissed. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No,2 that even after the expiry of his contract of employment on 15-1-2013, the petitioner is still holding the charge of the office and receiving salary on the basis of order dated 5-9-2012.
5. Learned A.A.-G. On behalf of respondent No,1 submitted that the petitioner has not approached the court with clean hands. During the period of contract, the performance of the petitioner had not been up to the mark and due to the petitioner's negligence a huge amount had to be surrendered.
It is further submitted that payment to the supplier was unanimously decided in the meeting of Implementation Committee held on 26-6-2012 and if the petitioner had any objection/reservation it should have been raised and discussed during the meeting. But once a decision was made then it was the responsibility of the petitioner to implement the same in its true letter and spirit according to the clause (iv) and (vii) of the contract of employment. Learned A.A.-G. Further submits that despite the decision of the Implementation Committee the petitioner instead of delivering the cheque to the supplier went on leave for three (3) days which amounts to misconduct on part of the petitioner as the petitioner was bound to follow the instruction of the Implementation Committee.
6. I have carefully examined the contentions agitated on behalf of the parties and have also gone through case-law cited and the record of the case. I am not persuaded to agree with the prime contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that show-cause notice or regular inquiry was necessary in the case in hand for the reason that instant was simply a case of insubordination and hardly any controversial fact, justifying a thorough probe, was involved. The petitioner could not substantiate his refusal to comply with the decision of the Implementation Committee and to handover the cheque, which amounts to misconduct. I am fortified by the observation made in the case reported as "Muhammad Aslam v. Inspector-General of Police Punjab" [2004 PLC (C.S.) 675] wherein it was held that it is not necessary that inquiry must be held in each and every case as it depends upon the circumstances of A the case. It is well-settled that services of an employee can be terminated without holding regular inquiry for the reason that the competent authority can dispense with holding of such inquiry especially when the allegation levelled against the employee found to be proved on the basis of documentary evidence. Reference in this regard is made to the case of "Mst. Samina Nazeer v. District Education Officer(W), Khanewal and others" (2004 SCMR 290).
7. Further being employee of Pakistan Institute of Fashion and Design a project of Trade Development Authority of Pakistan, the petitioner could not invoke the Constitutional Jurisdiction of this Court as it is well-settled by now that an employee of a corporation, in the absence of violation of law or any statutory rule, cannot press into service the Constitutional or civil jurisdiction for seeking relief of reinstatement in service. He can only claim damages against his wrongful dismissal or termination. Reference is made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as "Pakistan Red Crescent Society and another v. Syed Nazir Gillani (PLD 2005 SC 806).
8. It may also be mentioned here that in case of an employee of a corporation where protection cannot be sought under any statutory instrument or enactment the relationship between the employer and employee is that of a Master and Servant. Reliance is placed on "Nisar Ahmed v. The Director, Chiltan Ghee Mill" (1987 SCMR 1836).
9. Another important issue which was raised by the respondent No,2 is that the petitioner's contract of service expired on 15-1-2013, however he refused to hand over the charge of the post and kept everything under his control on the basis of order dated 5-9-2012 wherein the operation of order dated 9-8-2012 was suspended. It is clarified that vide order dated 5-9-2012 this Court only suspended the operation of termination order dated 9-8-2012 and the same had nothing to do with the contract of employment of the petitioner. After expiry of the contract of employment petitioner had no right to hold the office of the Project Director of the respondent institute if his contract was not renewed. Respondent No,2, if advised, is free to proceed against the petitioner for the recovery of salary, if received, after the expiry of the contract of employment.
10. Upshot of the above discussion is that this writ petition has no merit, which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.