' MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J. -- Briefly the facts of the case as are collected from contents of this writ petition are that petitioner joined Rescue Service-1122 as Fire Rescuer on contract basis in the year 2006 and thereafter his services were regularized. In appreciation of his work, he was sent on different courses including a Refresher Course, where a dispute arose between him and one Imtiaz CDI who had borrowed Rs. 2,000/- from petitioner and on demand for return, he moved application to Administrator Emergency Services Academy, Lahore and also to the Director General, Punjab Emergency Services. For this reason the officials of Emergency Services Academy became inimical towards the petitioner and on the basis of allegations a show-cause notice dated 11.4.2012 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner denied the allegations and ultimately letter dated 7th of May, 2012 for removal from service was issued against the petitioner. Against said removal order, departmental appeal of the petitioner failed vide order dated 3rd of December, 2012.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that when the petitioner had specifically denied the allegations levelled against him in the show-cause notice, a regular inquiry into the matter was essential, wherein, the petitioner had to be supplied copies of evidence against him, he should ~have right to produce his defence and during inquiry if any witness appear against him, he had a right to cross-examine such witness. Reliance has been placed on the case reported in 1997 SCM R 1543. Adds that fair trial under Article 10(a) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is inalienable right of the person against whom any allegation is levelled, but in this case neither transparent procedure nor fair trial has been provided to the petitioner and even without there being any formal order about dispensing with regular inquiry, in a slipshod manner the impugned removal from service order has been passed.
3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate-General opposed this petition on all corners by contending that petitioner was found guilty of repeated misbehaviour with authorities and further he was also habitual absentee, therefore, the order removing him from service is fully justified.
4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire available record with their assistance.
5. It is admitted fact that petitioner was employed in Rescue-1122 service, established under the "Punjab Emergency Services Act, 2006" which is an autonomous body being run under statutory rules. Appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed and by virtue of Section 19 of the PEEDA Act, being employee of an autonomous body per force of Section 2(h)(i) of the said Act, he could not file appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, hence, this writ petition is entertainable by this Court.
6. Without going deep into the factual aspect or controversy, the fact of the matter is that specific allegations of misbehaviour, abscondence from duty, habitual absentee and unsatisfactory performance, had been levelled against the petitioner. It is admitted position that without dispensing with regular inquiry as required by law a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, he submitted reply thereof but the authority without having recourse to regular inquiry and without affording opportunity of personal hearing, proceeded to pass the impugned order of removal from service.
7. To be precise enough, this slipshod act of the respondent/authority, whereby the impugned termination order has been passed without there being any order about dispensing with regular inquiry and without affording opportunity of personal hearing, is the pivotal point in this case.
8. After examining the entire record produced by the department and appended with this petition, it appears that only one show-cause notice dated 11.4.2012 was issued to the petitioner, which was replied by the petitioner on 17.5.2012, thereafter without dispensing with regular inquiry as required by the statute or providing him opportunity of personal hearing, the impugned order for removal from service was passed. Under Section 7(c) of the PEEDA Act, if the Authority has reasons and decides that there is no need for regular inquiry, he has to pass an order to dispense with regular inquiry and then shall issue show-cause notice and after receipt of reply to the show-cause notice by the accused/employee or if no reply is submitted within stipulated period, the authority shall determine whether the charge or charges have been proved against the accused and if the authority determines that charge/charges have been proved then he is bound under Section 7(d) of the PEEDA Act to provide opportunity of personal hearing to the accused employee, either himself or through the hearing officer, before passing the order of penalty under clause 9(f) of the Act, ibid, but in this case these mandatory provisions of PEEDA Act, have not been complied with.
9. For what has been discussed above, as the procedure provided in statutory provisions of PEEDA Act has not been complied with and the rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced, hence the impugned order runs against the spirit of law. Consequently, this petition is allowed, the impugned orders dated 17.5.2012, 3.12.2012 and 12.4.2013 are set aside and petitioner is reinstated in service. The period between his removal till reinstatement shall be considered as leave without pay.