' Through the instant writ petition under Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner has called into question the legality and validity of impugned order dated 18.07.2012 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from his service and impugned order 02.05.2012 whereby departmental appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Gunman Multan Region on 22.09.2003 in respondents' department. Thereafter, Respondent No, 3 issued a show-cause notice dated 22.03.2012 on the false allegation of willful absence from duty at National Savings Centre Vehari from 11.05.2011 to 13.05.2011. The petitioner denied the said allegation levelled against him.
Vide order dated 02.05.2012 without providing the opportunity of defence, the respondents dismissed the petitioner from his service. Petitioner preferred a departmental appeal dated 25.05.2012 against the said order before Respondent No, 1 but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 18.07.2012. Hence, this writ petition.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders dated 18.07.2012 and 02.05.2012 have been passed in violation of principle of natural justice. He further submits that dismissal from service is a major penalty, therefore, without holding regular inquiry such like order cannot be passed.
4. On the other hand learned Standing Counsel for Pakistan has supported the impugned order.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. It is an established principle of law that major penalty of dismissal of service cannot be imposed without holding a regular inquiry. Admittedly, the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice dated 22.03.2012 and the service of the petitioner was regulated by the statutory rules i.e, Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 which required regular inquiry before imposing major penalty. In this case after issuance of show-cause notice, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Reference may be made to case titled Tariq Mahmood vs. District Police Officer T. T. Singh and another (PLD 2008 SC 451). Reference may also be made to case titled Muhammad Haleem and another vs. General Manager (Operation) Pakistan Railways Headquarter, Lahore and others (2009 SCM R 339). The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced herein below: "2. From a bare perusal of aforementioned show-cause notice and statements of allegations it is noted that they are verbatim. It is also that the allegations levelled against them were with regard to the illegal supply of electricity and water belonging to railway to the resident of Muchar Colony including one Sultan Hotel. These charges could have been proved only by producing evidence showing that the petitioners were responsible for providing electricity and water belonging to the railways to the residents of Mucher Colony and Sultan Hotel but instead of doing so the respondents in their wisdom thought it fit that there was no need to hold an inquiry without specifying as to why there was no need for holding an inquiry and how the charges/misconduct which were questions of fact would be proved without holding an inquiry. In other words initiation of the proceedings against the petitioners was based on illegalities as the observation of doing away with the inquiry was contrary to the pronouncement made by this Court in a large number of cases that where the allegation/charge misconduct is of the nature requiring production of evidence to prove the same then holding of a departmental inquiry is a necessary condition and dispensation thereof cannot be made as in the first place there would be no evidence or material in possession of the department to establish and prove the charge/allegation of fact and, secondly that the civil servant proceeded against would be deprived of his right to defend, himself properly as it would not be possible for him to cross-examine the witnesses who would depose against him and from their cross-examination he could elicit favourable and beneficial statements. It is a settled principle of law that when the initial order or the very act which relates to the initiation of a proceeding is contrary to law and illegal then all subsequent proceedings and actions taken on the basis of such, illegal and unlawful action would have no basis and would fail. If any authority is required in support of the above the same is available form the case of Mansab Ali v. Amir and 3 others PLD 1971 SC 124. It also surprising that the Tribunal while hearing the appeals of the petitioner got involved and entangled itself in technicalities without taking into consideration the above illegalities. There is no doubt that the petitioners did not assail their orders of dismissal by filing the departmental appeals and instead they submitted legal notices through their advocates which, could not be equated or treated as appeal under the Removal from Service (Special Powers)
Ordinance, 2000 but completely ignored the illegalities and shortcoming committed by the Railway Authorities and on the basis of the failure of the petitioners to comply with the provisions of law penalized them while completely ignoring and overlooking the respondent/Railway Department's illegal, unlawful actions, and contravention of law which resulted in illegal dismissal of the petitioners."
7. Sequel to the above, this writ petition is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside. The petitioner if re-instated into service. The case of the petitioner is remanded to the respondent authorities who shall hold regular inquiry by associating the petitioners and all other concerned and shall pass a speaking order within a period of 90-days after receipt of certified copy of this order under intimation to Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.