' Mrs. Nargis Khatoon, petitioner herein, was appointed as a Telephone Operator by the Director- General, Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation, Islamabad on 28th December, 1973. She was confirmed in her appointment on 7th November, 1975. On the allegation of misconduct she was charge-sheeted on 11th March, 1978 by the Station Director, Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation, Lahore. He constituted a Committee for holding inquiry into the allegations against her. The Inquiry Committee in its report, dated 10th May, 1978 found that most of the allegations were substantiated against her but observed as follows :- " At the same time the committee feels that on account of her personal affairs she has perhaps been suffering from some mental or nervous trouble that led her to misbehave with others. The absence of any written report about the mishandling of exchange also tends to give her the benefit of doubt. It is now for the authority/authorised officer to determine and apportion the action to be taken in this case under the provisions of Chapter IX of ' P.B.C. Employees (Efficiency and Discipline)
Regulations, 1975, clause 9.09, subsection (d) page 55."
' The Station Director removed her from service vide his order, dated 14th May, 1978. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in appeal before the Director-General, Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation which was rejected on 28th May, 1978 and the order was communicated to her vide letter, dated 7th February, 1979. The petitioner then served the respondent with grievance notice under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and filed application on 29th October, 1979 before the Punjab Labour Court. On 28th April, 1980 the petition was returned to her by the Labour Court on account of amendment occurring in section 1 (3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 barring application of a particular category of employees. Thereafter, on 8th March, 1981 she filed a petition under section 6 of the Pakistan Essential Services Maintenance Act LIII of 1952 before the National Industrial Relation Commission, Islamabad. It was also dismissed on 24th December, 1981 in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Kharachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. v. National Industrial Relations Commission and another holding that N.I.R.C. Being "Specified Authority" could not decide the cases of termination of services of the employees of Essential Services. Lastly on 6th January, 1982 the petitioner invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court by means of this petition against the order of her removal from service.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Station Director, Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation was not competent to remove her from service as he was neither her appointing authority nor empowered to remove her. It was next contended that the inquiry proceedings held under Pakistan Broadcasting Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Regulations, 1975 were void because the Regulations had no approval of the Federal Government as envisaged under section 22 of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Act, 1973. It was also submitted that according to the respondent the Inquiry Committee summoned the petitioner on 12th April, 1978, 13th April, 1978 and 25th April, 1978 but statements of five witnesses,' namely, Muhammad Shafi producer, Khalid Asghar producer and M/s. Barkat Ali Cheema, Khalid Sherazi, Sardar Muhammad operators were recorded in her absence. The inquiry report dated 10th May, 1978 based thereon was of no legal effect. It was also stated that the petitioner was not provided opportunity of hearing in appeal, as such, she was condemned unheard by the appellate authority. It was lastly stated that the respondent on two occasions first before the N.I.R.C. And then before this Court had made offers to reinstate her in service without back benefits. It was submitted that the order of her removal from service was void and she could not be deprived of back benefits on her reinstatement in service.
Learned counsel relied on Abdur Razzaq Malik v. WAPDA and Nasir Ahmad v. Federal Minister, Information and Broadcasting, Government of Pakistan and 3 others , in support of his submissions.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner was provided full opportunity of hearing. She participated in the inquiry proceedings, cross-examined the witnesses and declined to produce evidence in defence. In fact she expressed regrets on her previous conduct. It was explained that M/s. Muhammad Shafi and others were nominated by her to elicit opinion about her conduct, it was, therefore, not necessary for the inquiry committee to record their statements, in her presence. It was contended that no doubt Pakistan Broadcasting Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Regulations, 1975 did not have the approval of the Federal Government as required under section 22 of the Pakistan Broadcasting Act, 1973 nevertheless the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation vide its decision, dated 10th September 1974 conferred upon the Station Directors full powers to impose penalties in disciplinary cases against the employees like the petitioner and referred to clauses 44 and 46 of the statement showing Revised Financial Administrative powers of heads of unit of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation. It was, however, admitted that the proceedings against the petitioner were conducted under Pakistan Broadcasting (Efficiency and Discipline) Regulations, 1975 which provided right of appeal against the order of removal before the authorities specified therein. It was also not denied that in case of petitioner, Director-General was the appellate authority specified in the aforesaid Regulations and that the petitioner was not heard in support of her appeal when it was decided by the Director-General.
Learned counsel further stated that the petitioner was made offer for reinstatement in service but that was purely on compassionate grounds. The allegations of misconduct against her having been established she was not entitled to back benefits. It was also stated that the petitioner had approached this Court against the impugned order after lapse of three years, and the petition1 2 3 suffered from laches. It was further argued that, as the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Regulations, 1975 had no efficacy for want of approval by the Federal Government before 1979, the petitioner's case was covered by the theory of master and servant and she could not maintain her petition against the order of her removal. He relied on Muhammad Yusuf Shah v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation in support of his contention.
It was lastly submitted that the Station Director had the jurisdition to remove her from service ; even if his order is erroneous, the same cannot be challenged in writ jurisdiction and referred to Muhammad Sharif and others v. Afzal Sohail and others .
4. The first question which falls for determination in this case is as to whether the Station Director was competent to remove the petitioner from service. Admittedly the petitioner was appointed in the year 1973 by the Director-General and not the Station Director. It is true that later on, the Heads of Unit (Station Directors) were empowered under Pakistan Broadcasting Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Regulations, 1975 to appoint or remove employees like the petitioner but the aforementioned Regulations for want of approval of the Federal Government as required under section 22 of the Pakistan Broadcasting (Efficiency and Discipline) Regulations, 1975 had no legal efficacy. The requisite approval was accorded in the year 1979 but the petitioner was removed from service on 14th May, 1978 and, her appeal was rejected on 28th May, 1978. Obviously, therefore, only the Director-General and not the Station Director was competent, before 1979 to pass valid order of her removal from service. The other contention o learned counsel that the decision, dated 14th September, 1974 of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation empowered the Station Directors to impose penalties in disciplinary matters against the employees like the petitioner was also of no force. The perusal of the decision dated 14th September 1974 together with the relevant clauses of schedule appended therewith only shows that Station Directors were empowered to impose all penalties but does not show that they were specifically authorised to impose penalty of "removal from service". The penalty of "removal from service", therefore, could not have been imposed by Station Director within conferment of special power on him. Obviously he had no jurisdiction to remove the petitioner from service. Muhammad Sharif's case cited by learned counsel is, therefore, of no help to the respondent. Admittedly the proceedings against the petitioner were conducted under the aforementioned Regulations of 1975 and not under the decision, dated 14th September, 1974. Therefore, the same cannot be pressed into service.
5. The other contention of learned counsel for the respondent that in] the absence of valid Regulations governing the terms and conditions of the Employees of Broadcasting Corporation, the principle of Master and Servant B would apply is also devoid of force. The respondent/Corporation is creation of a Federal Statute and its business is regulated under Rules. Muhammad Yousuf Shah's case relied by learned counsel is distinguishable and of no help to the respondent.
6. Learned counsel for the parties are not at variance on the point that the administration invoked the aforementioned Regulations for proceedings against petitioner with the presumption that the same were valid. The Regulations provided right of appeal against the orders of Station Directors.
Admittedly petitioner's appeal was rejected without hearing her. In other words she was condemned unheard and the impugned order is unsustainable. Furthermore, the relevant record reveals that the Inquiry Committee recorded statements of five witnesses to elicit opinion about her conduct her eabsence and the same were relied in the report submitted for action against her.
It was imperative for the inquiry Committee to have record their statements in presence of the petitioner if the same were required to relied in the report submitted, hence order, based on the inquiry report f her removal from service is of no legal effect.
7. As regards the last submission of learned counsel for the respondent that this petition was filed after lapse of three years from the date of the order of her removal from service, it is established on4 5 the record that the petitioner had challenged the impugned order initially before the Labour Court and then before N.
1. R. C. Followed by applications to the respondent before invoking the extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. In my view she did not act with contumacious negligence in prosecuting the remedies against the impugned order to attract principle of laches. In any case, after having held the impugned order of her removal from service passed by an authority without jurisdiction, I am not persuaded to invoke principle of laches to dismiss this petition.
8. In the result, the impugned order is declared to have been passed by the respondent without lawful authority and is of no legal effect. This petition is allowed with no order as to costs. L D 1982 SC 113 PLD 1973 Lab. 188 1979 CLC 133 PLD 1981 SC 224 PLD 1981 SC 246