' WAQAR AHMAD SETH, J.---Petitioners (in Writ Petitions Nos.277-A, 367-A, 406-A and 413-A of 2012) from time to time were appointed on contract basis against various posts by the respondents, who served the department upto entire satisfaction of their superiors for a long term but their services were terminated without any notice or show cause notice vide impugned orders. Petitioners seek the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court praying for:-- "that on acceptance of the writ petitions, the false allegation/ accusation foisted upon the petitioners for being involved in fake vaccination campaign conducted against the national interest and whereof stigmatized the loyalty and character of petitioners may graciously be removed and office order of termination No,73/DPIU/EDO/H ATD dated 21-2-2012, in pursuance of letter. No,S0H(EV) 2-210/07, Peshawar dated 20-2-2012, being violative of law, equity and justice and may graciously be set aside and the petitioners may graciously be reinstated with the past service benefits in toto. Any other relief which this honourable court deems fit and appropriate may also be granted".
' Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all the petitions, therefore, these are proposed to be disposed of by this single judgment.
2. Learned counsel for petitioners argued that no notice or show cause notice was ever served upon the petitioners before passing of impugned termination order and, as such, petitioners were condemned unheard. It was argued that although petitioners were appointed on contract basis but their services were extended from time to time and since impugned order has been passed in violation of the rules and regulation, therefore, liable to be set aside.
3. On the other hand, learned A.A.-G. Opposed the contentions of petitioners and argued that petitioners were appointed on contract basis and their services were extended from time to time but when the petitioners were found involved in a fake vaccination campaign conducted against the national interest, their services were rightly terminated by the respondents.
4. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed on contract basis but their services were extended from time to time for a long period. The services of petitioners were terminated on account of their involvement in a fake vaccination campaign conducted against the national interest but it appears that no notice or show cause notice was ever given to the petitioners. There is also nothing on record that petitioners were ever accorded opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned action. It appears that petitioners have been condemned unheard, which is apparently found against the norms of justice and law.
6. In the case of Secretary, Government of Punjab through Secretary Health Department, Lahore v.
Riaz-ul-Haq 1997 PLC (C. S.) 873 it has been held by the apex Court that if person is to be condemned for misconduct, in that event, even if he is temporarily employed or person employed on contract basis or probationer, he is entitled to fair opportunity to clear his position, which means that there should be regular inquiry in terms of Efficiency and Discipline Rules before condemning him for alleged misconduct. Without going into the controversy, as to whether the petitioner's claim that they were permanent employees, we may observe that there is a marked distinguished between simpliciter termination of service in accordance with the terms of appointment and the termination of service on the ground of misconduct. There is no doubt that if a person is employed on contract basis and if the terms of employment provides the manner of termination of his services, the same can be terminated in terms thereof. However, if a person is to be condemned for misconduct, in that event a regular inquiry and an opportunity to clear his position, is to be provided as per dictums laid down by the apex Court, time and again. In the instant case, there is an allegation of fake vaccination campaign, which in fact comes within the ambit of misconduct.
7. We in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot go deep into merits or demerits of each and every employee's case in writ jurisdiction and leave it open to respondents to see the actual involvement of the employees in the alleged fake vaccination campaign and direct the respondents to conduct a proper inquiry into the matter and then proceed against the petitioners strictly in accordance with the rules and regulation, as it appears that no notice or show cause notice or final show case notice was ever given to the petitioners, which is mandatory in view of the rules governing the subject-matter, and respondents in haste manner passed the impugned orders. Both the learned counsel agreed to the proposition that let respondents may proceed against the petitioners but in accordance with law and in case of issuance of notice or show cause notice or final notice replications be sought from the employees and they be given a chance of hearing before passing of any adverse order.
8. In the light of the above, all the petitions are disposed of in the terms stated hereinabove. The petitioners would be entitled to all back benefit subject to the result of fresh inquiry proceedings regarding involvement of petitioners in fake vaccination campaign or not, which may be completed within a month positively.