Ch. Muhammad Masood Jahangir , J: In essential details apart, vide orders dated 27.11.2008 the petitioner had been appointed as Sanitary Worker with respondents/department on contract basis initially for a period of three years , but subsequently pursuant to show cause notice dated 10.03.2019 to the following ef fect:- "During the verification of your anteceden ts by Special Branch, it has been transpired that a Case FIR No.494/09 dated 17.08.2009 u/s 3/4 PO PPC PS City Haroonabad, District Bahawalnagar has been got against you and case is under trial in court. Being a member of the discipline force, your involvement in a criminal case is neither acceptable nor tolerable. In this way, you proved yourself quite inefficient and irresponsible/careless official in the discharge of official duty warranting disciplinary action against you." he was terminated from service vide order dated 25.03.2019, which has been impugned through the instant writ petition mainly on the ground that the petitioner was not involved in the criminal case pointed out by the Department as the same stood registered under section 5 of The Punjab Prevention of Gambling Ordinance, 1978 (Pb Ord. VII of 1978) against some other culprits, namely , Abdul Ghaf far, Shehzad Ahmad, Muhammad Saleem s/o Ahmad and Muhammad Saleem son of Haji Niaz Ahmad.
In response, the respondents submitted their report and para-wise comments while alleging that it was condition precedent that the "Candidate having criminal record or affiliation with any proscribed organization shall not be appointed " and his appointment order self-contained the following condition:- "His appointment will be subject to verification of his character , antecedents and educational certificates.
Verification process will be done from concerned board through local police and Special Branch Punjab. In case any thing adverse comes into the notice, then his services may be terminated forthwith including criminal action.
Moreover , his salary will be paid after verification."
The respondents also attached copy of FIR No. 424 of 2009 to contend that actually the petitioner was involved in the said case, which is still under trial before the court.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Law Officer appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the available record with their able assistance.
3. Although the petitioner has also denied his involvement even in case FIR No.424 of 2009 subsequently introduced by the respondents in their comments, but the fact remains that admittedly so far no conviction has been recorded against him. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Shakeel Ahmad Vs. I.G. Punjab Police, Lahore and others (2007 SCMR 192) held that without waiting for the decision of the criminal proceedings no disciplinary action could be initiated again st a civil servant, In some what identical situation, Division Bench of this Court in Muhammad Rashid vs. Government of Punjab and 4 others {2019 PLC (C.S.) 1241 } on the strength of the dicta laid down by the apex Court in Superintending Engineer GEPCO, Sialkot v. Muhammad Yousaf (2007 SCMR 537) also held that mere implication in FIR from which the employee was able to clear his name by demonstrating his innocence, could not be used to deprive him of his service, hence in the instant case the competent authority merely on the registration of criminal case long ago without waiting for the decision of the competent Court opted to proceed with the matter in an unnecessary haste resulting in miscarriage of justice to the petitioner . There indeed is the basic requirement of due process guaranteed by Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which having not been adhered to, order of terminating employment of the petitioner is wholly untenable.
4. Consequently, this Writ Petition is allowed, impugned termination order/letter dated 25.03.2019 being without lawful authority is quashed and the petitioner is reinstated to service forthwith, however, it is clarified that this order shall not debar the respondents from further proceeding against him, if some other situation will arise.