1. ' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J -Petitioner, who is proprietor of M/s. J-K (Overseas) Corporation, has called in question by this petition show-cause notices and orders of suspension and cancellation of his licence and orders adverse to him passed in appeal and review to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and has prayed for restoration of his licence. On 14-1-1982 after hearing the learned counsel appearing for both sides, by a short order we allowed this petition and directed respondent No, 2 to renew the licence of the petitioner forthwith, for reasons to be recorded later which follow now.
2. ' Since 1977 the petitioner has been carrying on business of export of emigrant labour primarily to the Middle East under a promotor's licence granted by respondent No,
1. Subsequently on 5th May, 1979 a show-cause notice was issued against the petitioner alleging therein that he charged Rs, 10,00,0 from each intending emigrant on the pretext of providing them employment in Saudi Arabia and got registered foreign service agreements of the persons concerned but failed to despatch them to their destination and the petitioner did not return the money to the concerned persons.
3. The petitioner sent a detailed reply dated 10th May, 1979, whereby the whole position was clarified and the allegations were denied. The case of the petitioner according to this written reply was that M/s. International Business Associates had undertaken recruitment of 172 persons for service in Saudi Arabia add got the foreign service agreements registered in the office of 'respondent No, 3.
4. At a late stage it was discovered that the said firm had never recruited any persons for Saudi Arabia previously as such they were unaware of the procedure of getting visas from Saudi Arabian Embassy. Petitioner was approached to assist them which was done in good faith for the sake of business co-operation without any remuneration. Visa applications were prepared and sent to the Embassy but they were rejected on the ground that visa number shown therein was not correct.
5. Subsequently an employee of the said firm went to Saudi Arabia to have the number checked and confirmed. Petitioner never heard anything further in context of this matter. It was also pointed out by the petitioner that one Mr. Muhammad Ishaq Khan had lodged a complaint against Mr. Lzharul Haq Farooqi proprietor of International Business Associates with Martial 'Law authorities, which was forwarded to C.I.A. For investigation. When petitioner came to know about this complaint, he voluntarily approached respondent No, 3 and explained his position in the matter and submitted the facts in writing by way of letter dated 29th April, 1979. These facts were again reiterated in reply dated 10th May, 1979 to show-cause notice. Subsequently vide letter dated 25th July, 1979 licence of the petitioner was suspended with immediate effect until further orders. On the following day, i.e, 26th July, 1979 another show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner in which charge with regard to registration of foreign service agreements has been altered to the allegation that the petitioner had no demand in. Hand but charged money from those persons and tried to get them adjusted in the demand of another O.E.P. The petitioner sent the reply to this second show-cause notice also on similar lines as stated above but to no avail. On 18-8-1979 petitioner was interviewed by Director-General, Bureau of Emigration, Manpower Division, who is respondent No, 2 and subsequently on 18th August, 1979 licence of the petitioner was cancelled by a very short order in which reasons for doing so are not specified.Petitioner preferred an appeal under Rule 12 of the Emigration Rules, 1979 which has been disposed of by order dated 8-11-1979 by the Joint Secretary of this concerned Ministry. The appellate authority has held that charge regarding payment of Rs, 10,000 to the petitioner from each intending emigrant is not proved but the charge of forming association with another firm that is M/s. International Business Associates stands proved which is not permitted under rule 11 of the Emigration Rules.
6. 1979. In the result the appellate authority saw no ground to interfere and the appeal was dismissed.
7. Subsequently review application filed under rule 13 of Emigration Rules also came to be dismissed vide letter dated 31-3-1981.
8. ' Mr. Nasim Farooqi, counsel for the petitioner has contended that ing the licence of the petitioner is penal in nature and should not have been passed arbitrarily at the very commencement of the inquiry and as such is not sustainable under law. He has further submitted in this context that suspension of licence is distinguishable from suspension of a Government servant. While in inquiry against a Government servant, he can be suspended during the pendency of inquiry and by such suspension he does not lose his office and his rank remains maintained and he draws subsistence allowance. Ultimately when he is honourably acquitted he is allowed to draw full salary for the period of suspension and also get other benefits which could accrue to him if he bad not been suspended. Mr. Farooqi further submitted that on the other hand if the licence is suspended it causes incalculable harm to the importer or the exporter for which he cannot get any redress even if later the order of suspension is withdrawn. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel on the decision in the case of M/s. East-End Exporters, Karachi v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Rawalpindi and another (1).
9. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner has also criticized the manner in which the inquiry proceedings were conducted. He has pointed out that there was no proper application of mind which is evident from the fact that two show-cause notices were issued relating to the same subject-matter and in the second show-cause notice one charge was substantially altered. He has further submitted that hearing was not a proper hearing and was colourable exercise of jurisdiction because defence of the petitioner was not considered at all. It is further submitted that this assertion is further fortified by the fact that even final order of cancellation of licence issued on 18th August, 1979 is a very short order, which is not a speaking order as it contains no reasons for giving such finding and the petitioner was unable to understand as to what charge was proved against him on the basis of which his licence was cancelled. Further more in appeal the appellate authority has held in very clear and vocal terms that charge of accepting money from intending emigrants is not proved. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that if this charge is not proved then there is no other evidence available on the record to substantiate any other charge. Mr. Nasim Farooqi further argued that appellate authority was not competent to hold in the order that there was sufficient evidence to show that petitioner had formed association with another firm as such contravened rule 11 of the Emigra- tion Rules for the reason that no such charge was framed in either of the
(1) PLD 1965 SC 605 ' two show-cause notices and communicated to the petitioner. On this charge petitioner stands condemned unheard. It is further submitted that there was no association between the petitioner and M/s. International Business Associates and explanation furnished by the petitioner in this context has not been taken into consideration. Rule 11 of the Emigration Rules 1979 provides that no Overseas Employment Promoter shall appoint any sub-promoter or open any (sub office) or branch office. The petitioner as well as M/s. International Business Associates are both promoters hence the question of appointment of one promoter as sub-promoter by another promoter does not arise. Mr. Syed Inayat Ali, counsel for respondents has very fairly conceded this point and rightly so. In these circumstances and for the facts and reasons mentioned above we set aside the impugned orders and allow the petition with costs. We declare that order of cancellation of licence in favour of the petitioner was without lawful authority and of no legal effect and we direct respondent No, 2 to renew the petitioner's licence forthwith.