' WAZIR SHAKEEL AHMED, J.--- Petitioner Mir Intikhab-ul Haq through this writ petition under Article 71(A) of Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self Governance Order, 2009), seeks reversal of a notification dated 24-4-2014 whereby his contractual service as Excise and Taxation Officer (ETO) in the Excise and Taxation Department Gilgit-Baltistan was terminated by the answering respondents.
2. Brief facts which culminated into the filing of this petition are that initially the petitioner was appointed as Excise and Taxation Officer in BS-17 on contract basis through the recommendation of DRC/ DPC on 24-12-2009 for one year. This period was further extended by respondent No,1 vide office order bearing No,Secy.E&T-ZKR-(11)/2010 dated 6-7-2011 whereby the service of petitioner was supposed to continue till the recruitment of regular incumbent through FPSC.
3. The Excise and Taxation department got signed a contract for procurement of printed computerized number plates and an amount of 60 million rupees were allegedly made available by the Finance Department Gilgit-Baltistan which was paid to the contractor in advance without adhering the rules of procurement. Respondent No,1 on the complaints by some quarters regarding procurement process and disbursement of the amount for and by the department, issued directions to the Director General Chief Minister Inspection Team (CMIT) Gilgit-Baltistan to probe the matter, who in compliance with directions submitted a report to respondent No,1 with the recommendation that the then Secretary Finance, Secretary Excise and Taxation, Deputy Director Excise and Taxation and ETO (petitioner) be taken to the task being involved in violation of rules, misappropriation of State funds and serious irregularities, in disbursement of the budget without approval of competent authority when there was a serious financial crunch in Gilgit-Baltistan.
4. On the basis of above report/investigation conducted by CMIT. The impugned order of termination was issued by the respondents against the petitioner and the same has been made impugned through the instant writ petition.
5 . We have given a fair hearing to the learned counsel of the parties and also gone through the available record submitted by the parties with the petition and parawise comments. The learned counsel of the petitioners vehemently agitated that the impugned order of termination has been issued without giving the petitioner a show-cause notice and an opportunity of being heard, despite of serious allegation like corruption misappropriation of government funds etc were levelled against him in that case. In the given situation the respondents were legally bound to provide an opportunity of being heard and a chance to defend himself against the charges levelled against him. He further argued that none from the higher position holder of the department were dealt about the allegations but only the petitioner was terminated from his job against the terms arid conditions of service as provided in his appointment order dated 24-12- 2009.
6. The learned Assistant Advocate-General assisted by the departmental legal Advisor submits that the petitioner being a contract employee could not presume to be a regular employee hence no formal inquiry or show-cause notices is required for termination of his service. The competent authority on the basis of report by the CMIT has disengaged him from his contractual job. So the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief under the Article 71(A) of Self Governance Order, 2009.
7. It is an admitted state of affair that the petitioner was appointed as Excise and Taxation Officer in BS-17 on the recommendation of departmental Selection Committee after adhering all the codal formalities required for appointments in a Government Job on contract basis initially for the period of one year vide office letter No, F&R-A-3(33)/2005 dated 24-12-2009. The answering respondents feeling themselves satisfied by the services rendered by the petitioner, extended his contractual services till indefinite time i,e, recruitment of regular incumbents through Service Commission.
8. The respondent No,2 issued impugned order dated 24-4-2014 on behalf of respondent No,1 leveling certain serious allegations against the petitioner as well as the Secretary, Deputy Director and others of the same department as evident from the notification dated 24-4-2014 and thereby terminated the services of the petitioner on the grounds and the allegations levelled against him in the impugned order. The terms of services of the petitioner have been provided in the order dated 24-12-2009. Serial No,12 of the said order provides that "Rules made and instructions issued by the Government or prescribed as for civil servants under sections 15 and 16 of Civil Servants Act, 1973 as amended from time to time shall apply". Likewise vide serial No,13 of the said order, the petitioner was also held entitled to the right of appeal provided under E&D rules.
9. In the presence of above mentioned safeguards in favour of the petitioner, the respondents did not bother to issue any single notice against the petitioner whereby he should be asked to clear his position as regard to the serious allegations, of corruption and misappropriation etc or to adjudicate on the appeal preferred by petitioner. The parawise comments before us even do not disclose whether the respondents had appointed any inquiry committee to probe the allegations against the petitioner. The only reliance placed by the respondents is the report submitted by the Chief Minister Inspection Team on the basis of which the termination of the petitioner was ordered.
This report cannot be substituted to a departmental inquiry whereby a person allegedly involved in corruption cases is legally entitled to an opportunity of being heard and defend the allegations levelled against him and this right cannot be taken away from a person who is being employed even on contract basis as laid down in number of cases by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan and High Courts of the Country specially in the case reported in PLD 1956 SC Page-431 and 1999 CLC Page 548.
9. That the petitioner after his appointment was entitled to continue his services till any recruitment made by Public Service Commission and thereby a valuable legal right was created in his favour.
He was enjoying his job from the date of his appointment. The authorities although were empowered to cancel/rescind the notifications, rules, laws and orders but they cannot exercise the power under the rule known as "locus poeintentiae" provided vide section 21 of General Clauses Act where the order or notification have taken its effect and accrued valuable right in favour of any party.
10. As described above the respondents did not follow the service rules even did not bother to provide a fair opportunity to the petitioner of being heard and defend the allegations leveled against him. Condemning a person unheard just on the basis of a fact finding report tantamount nothing than miscarriage of justice.
11. We in the circumstance have no option but to accept this writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 24-04-2014 and we by doing so direct that the petitioner be re-instated in his position with all back-benefits.