This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4-7-1981, passed by the Chairman, Town Committee Qila Sobha Singh, whereby the petitioner was removed from service.
2. The facts which led to the institution of this writ petition are that on 1-8-1974, the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk/Moharrar, by the then Administrator of the Town Committee and till his removal; he served in that capacity. First of all he was served with notice Annex. 'VIII' dated 20-1- 1981. This was followed by notices Annexs : 'XVIII' and 'XX' both dated 14-5-1981. These notices embodied certain allegations against the petitioner, to which he replied. There is still an other notice Annex : ',XVI' dated 28-2-1981 which was issued to the :: petitioner on the ground that he was resident of Narowal and thus, his appointment was violative of rule 8 (3) of the Municipal Committee (Service) Rules, 1969. This notice too was duly replied by the petitioner. By order dated 28-5-1981 (Annex. 'XXII') the petitioner was placed under suspension and ultimately removed from service under the impugned artier.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record. In the parawise comments the stand taken by the respondent is that the petitioner was removed from service in consequ--hence of the charges brought against him. The same contention has been raised by his learned counsel during the submissions before the Court. The impugned order, however, demonstrates that no inquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner, in the notices Annexs. `VIII', `XVIII' and `XX', as required under the Municipal Servants (Efficiency and A Discipline) Rules, 1963 was held. Even the learned counsel for the respondent could not refute it.
3. Though these notices find mention in the impugned order but its tenor shows that the petitioner was removed from service for the reason that his appointment had been made in violation of the Municipal Committee (Service) Rules, 1969. However, his removal on this ground is also illegal. The reason being that the petitioner's appointment ha been acted upon for a period of about 7 years and rights thereunder accrued to him. Even if the order dated 1-8-1974, does not conform to the requirements of rule 8 (3), the power to rescind this order, to the detriment of the petitioner, is no longer available to the Committee. Reference in this connection may be made to Pakistan v.
Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi (PLD 1969 SC 407) and Muhammad Abdullah Khan v. National Bank of Pakistan (1980 PLC (C. S.) 105). The impugned order, therefore, cannot be upheld.
4. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is accepted, and the impugned order declared to have been passed without lawful authority. As regards the petitioner's removal from service on the grounds other the those anchored on rule 8 (3), it would be open to the' Town Committee to proceed against him in accordance with law.
The parties are left to bear their own costs.