' MIAN FASIH-UL-MULK, J.--- Through instant writ petition, office orders dated 29-6-2009 and 19-8- 2010 passed by the Executive District Officer Health, Charsadda (respondent No,3) and Director General----Health Services, Peshawar (respondent No,2) have been challenged by petitioner whereby his appointment on the post of Store Keeper has been withdrawn.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No,3 advertised the post of Store Keeper in BPS-05.
Petitioner applied for the same who was declared successful in the test and interview and on the recommendations of Departmental Selection Committee, he was appointed on the post vide office Order No,3833-38EDO(H) dated 29-6-2009 but subsequently vide impugned order, his appointment on the post was withdrawn and appeal of petitioner before respondent No,2 also failed; hence the instant petition.
3. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 were called to submit their comments, who have submitted the same.
It is stated in the comments that although petitioner had participated in the test and interview but he could not secure a place in the final merit list and inadvertently his appointment order was issued, which was thus withdrawn/cancelled, being issued by mistake.
4. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
5 Annexure-A with the writ petition is the advertisement whereby applications were invited from suitable candidates for various vacant posts in the office of Executive District Officer Health, Charsadda including the post of Store Keeper. Annexure B is the office order dated 29-6-2009 whereby on the recommendation of Departmental Selection Committee, petitioner was appointed as Storekeeper at DHQ Hospital, Charsadda on contract basis. Vide Office order dated 1-7-2009 (Annexure-C) the newly appointed persons were asked to produce relevant documents. Petitioner on 2-7-2009 submitted his medical certificate as well as arrival report to the Medical Superintendent DHQ Hospital, Charsadda, copies of which are annexed with the writ petition as Annexures-D and E. The Attendance Register for the month of July, 2009, Annexure F, further confirms that petitioner duly joined his place of posting and marked the attendance register from 6-7-2009 to 16-7-2009, whereafter the impugned order was communicated to him. The stance of respondents though in their comments is that petitioner had not secured top position in the test and interview and the order of appointment was inadvertently issued which mistake was thus cured vide A impugned order dated 29-6-2009 but they have attached no documentary proof in support of their plea. Hence it stands an admitted fact that petitioner was appointed after due process for appointment, who even joined his duties at DHQ Hospital, Charsadda for about 10 days and vide impugned order his appointment was cancelled without assigning any reason whatsoever. Obviously, the fundamental right and protection of petitioner guaranteed by the Constitution has been violated by the respondents.
6. Locus Penitential literally signifies a place of repentance. Principle of locus poenitentiae (power of receding till decisive step taken) is available to government or relevant authorities but an order cannot be withdrawn or rescinded once the same has taken legal effect and certain rights are created in favour of any individual. The case of petitioner is of the nature that the order of appointment passed by respondents could neither be revoked nor withdrawn and as such, the benefit drawn by petitioner could not be withdrawn or rescinded as well by the respondents. As per available record, after going through all the requisite procedure the petitioner was issued appointment letter, pursuant to which he joined his place of posting, as such a valuable right under the principle of locus poenitentiae has accrued in his favour, which could not be taken away. Even if there was any illegality in the appointment of - petitioner, as repeatedly held by the apex Court, instead of taking action against the concerned delinquent authorities, petty employee like petitioner has been subjected to victimization, which is not the mandate of law. It is settled principle of law that when any action is proposed to be taken against an employee appointed even on ad-hoc or contract basis, a regular inquiry has to be conducted, so that the concerned employees must not only know the allegations against him but also be able to defend D himself before the Enquiry Officer. Similarly right of personal hearing also cannot be taken off. Therefore, the action taken by respondents against petitioner in this case cannot be approved which otherwise amount to spoiling the whole future prospects of the poor employee. Reliance can be placed on the case of "The Secretary Government of Punjab through Secretary Health Department Lahore and others v. Riaz ul Haq (1997 SCM R 1552).
7. For what has been discussed above, this writ petition is accepted and the impugned orders dated 29-6-2009 and 19-8-2010 are hereby declared as illegal, unlawful and ineffective; hence set aside. The petitioner shall be considered re-instated in service w,e,f, 2-7-2009. Since petitioner has not attended his duties after 16-7-2009, he would, therefore, not be entitled to salary for the intervening period. The parties are life to bear their own costs.