' Through this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner ,has assailed the impugned orders dated 05.06.2014, 06.06.2009 and 05.08.2011 passed by the respondents.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was charge sheeted on 08.05.2000 along with other co-accused under ZTBL Officers Services (E&D) Regulations, 1975 on certain allegations which resulted into dismissal of his services vide order dated 25.06.2001 passed by the Zonal head, ZTBL, Bahawalpur against which the petitioner preferred a service appeal before Federal Service Tribunal, which was abated and thereafter the petitioner filed W.P. No, 1711 of 2006 before this Court. The same was disposed of with the direction to the respondents to hold denovo inquiry against the petitioner vide order dated 24.01.2008. Consequently, Vide order dated 18.12.2008 the petitioner was taken back to his duty. He was charge sheeted afresh and after conducting inquiry and keeping in view the findings of the inquiry officer, the Senior Vice President
(DPD) vide impugned order dated 06.06.2009 imposed upon the petitioner major penalty of reduction by two stages lower in the time scale of pay of the petitioner for a period of three years and the intervening period from the date of the petitioner's dismissal i,e, 25.06.2001 to the date of his reinstatement i,e, 18.12.2008, was ordered to be adjusted towards leave due to any kind and the remaining period was ordered to be treated as EOL without pay. The petitioner being aggrieved of the said order, preferred an appeal before Executive Vice President (HR) which was also dismissed due to lack of merit vide impugned order dated 05.08.2011 which constrained the petitioner to file W.P. No, 5967/2011 before this Court which also met with the same fate and was dismissed vide order dated 27.09.2012. The petitioner then filed Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. Vide judgment dated 14.05.2013 the same was converted appeal and the order dated 27.09.2012 passed by this Court was set aside and the case was remanded to this Court to decide the petitioner's W.P. No, 5967/2011 on merits. During the proceedings before this Court, the petitioner made a request that his appeal may be transmitted to Secretary Finance for decision. At the petitioner's request W.P. No, 5967/2011 was disposed of vide order dated 23.04.2014 with a direction to Secretary, Ministry of Finance to look into the grievance of the petitioner and decide the same within a period of two months. The Ministry of Finance in compliance of order of this Court, afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and vide order dated 05.06.2014 disposed of the appeal of the petitioner with the direction to the petitioner to avail his remedy before an appropriate forum. Hence, this writ petition.
2. It is mainly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order dated 05.08.2011 passed by the appellate authority is without assigning any reason which is repugnant to Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-bank supported the impugned order dated 05.08.2011 by contending that impugned appellate order is not a judicial order but an executive order, therefore, assigning of any reason is not mandatory.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. It is now an established principle of law that even an administrative/executive order must be passed with reasons. It will be advantageous to reproduced the impugned appellate order dated 05.08.2011 as under:-- "Reference is made to your Departmental Appeal dated 24.06.2009 against the decision of authority vide OM dated 06.06.2009. In this regard, your appeal has been considered by the EVP(HR)/Appellate Authority under E&D Regulations, 1975 but not acceded to, as the same has not been found on merit."
6. The bare perusal of the above order shows that same has been passed without assigning any reason. It will also be advantageous to reproduce Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which is as under:-- "24-A. Exercise of power under enactments.--(1) Where, by or
3. Under any enactment, a power to make any order or give any direction in conferred on any authority, office or person such power shall be exercised reasonably, fairly, justly and for the advancement of the purposes of the enactment.
(2) The authority, office or person making any order or issuing any direction under the powers conferred by or under any enactment shall, so far as necessary or appropriate, give reasons for making the order or, as the case may be, for issuing the direction and shall provide a copy of the order or, as the case may be, the direction to the person affected prejudicially."
7. The provision of Section 24-A of the Act ibid has made it obligatory on the functionaries to substantiate their conclusions with reasons. The public functionaries are duty bound to decide the controversies after application of independent mind with reasons.. It is manifestly clear that impugned appellate order has been passed in a mechanical way without applying independent mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned appellate order does not reflect that what was the controversy which was decided by the appellate authority. Reference may be made to the case law reported as "Government of Pakistan through Director-General, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and others v. Farheen Rashid" (2011 SCMR 1)._ Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced herein below: "8. We have given our anxious considerations to the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants and also heard the respondent. It is pertinent to mention here that the Inquiry Officer Ch. Zuffiqar Ali, Assistant Director Legal, FIA, had submitted report to the competent authority on 13- 7-2006 which has already been mentioned herein above wherein it was recommended that criminal case be also registered against the respondent with the concerned police station in order to recover the stolen 8000 UAE Dirham of the complainant. There is no allegation qua theft of the aforesaid amount in the charge-sheet and show-cause notice. The competent authority dismissed the respondent on 28-7-2006 by countersigning the report of the Inquiry Officer as is evident from para. 3, of the dismissal order dated 28-7-2006. See Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din's case PLD 1964 SC 829. The learned Service Tribunal although had converted the major penalty of dismissal into minor penalty as mentioned above yet the Service Tribunal had also not examined the facts that the charge-sheet and show-cause notice issued by the appellant to the respondent were defective. After addition of Section 24-A in the General Clauses Act, it is the duty and obligation of the public functionaries to decide the cases of their subordinates after application of mind with cogent reasons within reasonable time as law laid down by this Court in Messrs Airport Support Services's case 1998 SCMR 2268 and Aslam Warraich's case 1991 SCMR 2330. It is the duty and obligation of the Federal Service Tribunal to decide the appeal of the respondent after application of mind with reasons as law laid down by this Court in Gouranga Mohan Sikdar's case PLD 1970 SC 158."
' Further reference may be made to the case law reported as "Mian Ayaz Anwar v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretar)4 Interior and 3 others" (PLD 2010 Lahore 230). The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduce herein below: "44. Additionally, it is clear from the comments, that the Ministry of Interior never applied its mind before placing the name of the petitioner on the ECL as the impugned order is a result of dictation from the Finance Division/State Bank of Pakistan. Discretion exercised under dictation, without reasons, based on irrelevant facts is not lawful exercise of discretion and therefore placing the name of the petitioner on the ECL in the present case shows that he has not been dealt with in accordance with law as provided in Articles 4 and 9 of the Constitution. Not to furnish reason for the decision violates the principle of fairness, procedural propriety and natural justice besides Section 24A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The impugned Memorandum fails to meet the requirement of procedural due process."
8. Nutshell of the above discussion is that, this writ petition is allowed, impugned appellate order dated 05.08.2011 is hereby set-aside and the case is remanded to Executive Vice President, Human Rights Department, ZTBL, Head Office, Faisal Avenue, Islamabad/ Respondent No, 2, who shall decide the appeal of the petitioner afresh and shall pass a well-reasoned speaking order within a period of 30-days after the receipt of certified copy of this order after hearing the petitioner and all other concerned under intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. No order as to cost.