' SHAH KHAWAR, J.--- Through the instant writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the vires of notice dated 1-8-2013, whereby respondent No,2 on behalf of respondent No,3 intimated the petitioners that the appointments of the petitioners for the post of LDCs, who were selected against 33% quota reserved for former class-IV staff held on 2-4-2013 and 4-4-2013, have been cancelled due to serious irregularities in selection process.
2. The case of the petitioner No,1 is that he having matriculation qualification joined the Pakistan Railways as Telephone Attendant (TPA/Multan Shed) on 8-10-1999 in BS-3 and petitioner No,2 also having matriculation qualification joined Pakistan Railways as Fuel Issued Multan Shed on 26-6- 1986 in BS-3. Later on, the petitioners were inducted as LDC (BS-7) against 33% in service quota.
They along with six others appeared in the test and interviews. Resultantly, the petitioners vide notice dated .8-4-2013, were promoted/posted as LDCs (BS-7) temporarily till further orders The said notice was issued by respondent No,2 on behalf and approval of respondent No,3. Soon after their appointment, the petitioners assumed charge as LDCs and have been drawing salaries of BS- 7, but astonishingly they received the impugned notice dated 1-8-2013 whereby the promotion/selection of the petitioners was cancelled, hence this petition.
3. Vide order dated 16-8-2013, this Court suspended the operation of the impugned order dated 1- 8-2013 and the petitioners are still performing their duties as LDCs. The respondents were issued notices and they filed report and parawise comments. The respondents in their parawise comments maintained that any benefit of promotion can be withdrawn or rescinded at any stage if based on irregularities and contrary to the policy and rules and principle of locus poenitentiae is applicable. Further maintained that according to the Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual 33% quota is allocated/reserved for the former class-IV staff, wherein only one post was available against the said quota but the then Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways promoted four employees including the present petitioners against the available one post. On receipt of complaints, the matter was inquired and an Inquiry Committee was constituted to probe into the illegalities and irregularities in promotion of the petitioners. It is mentioned in the parawise comments that the Inquiry Committee summoned the petitioners for typing test, but they failed.
Further submitted that the respondents have carried out departmental as well as criminal proceedings against the former Divisional Superintendent and other officials of the Pakistan Railways, who were found involved in the illegal promotion of the petitioners.
4. When asked from the learned counsel appearing for the respondents as to whether any show- cause notice or personal hearing was offered to the petitioners before passing the impugned order dated 1-8-2013, the learned counsel after seeking instructions from the representative of the Pakistan Railways, who is present in Court, candidly admitted that neither any show-cause notice was issued nor the petitioners were called for personal hearing before passing the impugned order.
5. When a vested right is accrued in favour of any individual, the same could not be withheld by just taking the petitioner in surprise by A withholding the same. Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is very clear which requires the State functionaries to afford a proper opportunity of hearing to an individual against whom an adverse order is going to be passed. Reference can be IB made to the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. P.1.A. C. and another's case (1994 SCM R 2232), wherein it is held that "there is judicial consensus that the Maxim audi alteram partem is applicable to judicial as well as to non-judicial proceedings. The above Maxim will be read into as a part of every statute if the right of hearing has not been expressly provided therein. In the cited case-law respondent No,1 in its comments to the writ petition admitted the fact that no show-cause notice was issued to the appellant nor she was heard before the impugned order dated 6th August, 1991 reverting her to Group VI from Group VII. In this view of the matter there has been violation of the principles of natural justice. The above violation can be equated with the violation of a provision of law warranting pressing into service Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, which the High Court failed to exercise."
6. Since the petitioners have acquired vested right by way of their promotion as LDCs (BS-7) and neither any show-cause notice was issued nor they were provided the right of hearing, which makes the whole exercise as illegal, unconstitutional and in glaring violation of the principle of natural justice. This sole reason is sufficient to strike down the impugned notice dated 1-8-2013, which is hereby set-aside. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to assume charge of their offices w.e.f, the date of their joining i.e, 8-4-2013 with all back-benefits.
7. With these observations, the instant writ petition stands accepted.