' MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, J.--The petitioner has felt aggrieved against the orders of Director- General of Bureau of Emigration and Overseas Employment, Government of Pakistan, dated 1-7- 1981 cancelling the overseas employment licence granted to the petitioner. They are also aggrieved against the order in appeal passed by the Joint Secretary, Government of Pakistan, dated 21-10-1981. The petitioner carries on business of recruitment of personnels for employment abroad. He has been granted such licence by the Government of Pakistan and he has deposited a sum of Rs,1,00,000 (One lac) as a security with the Government of Pakistan. On 4-6-1981 the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice for cancellation of a licensee on the ground that he had sublet the licence to Rafiq Ali Zaidi without approval of the competent Authority and that Rafiq Ali Zaidi, the sub-lessee of the licence had offered Rs,5,000 to the employer for each man and that the petitioner' had charged Rs,14,000 from 9 emigrants recruited for Messrs Musafir Muhammad Al- Malika, Saudi Arabia, but the employer did not provide the job to 8 emigrants with the result that they were sent to Jail and lastly the petitioner had charged Rs,14,000 from Abdul Razzak for employment with above employer. The petitioner replied to the said show-cause notice and denied the allegations contained in the show-cause notice. The Director-General gave hearing to the petitioner on 1-7-1981 where the petitioner denied having charged Rs,14,000 from any recruit and also denied any partnership with Rafiq Ali Zaidi. He had also denied that Rafiq Ali Zaidi had offered any bribe to any employer.
2. The Director-General, however, held that there was sufficient evidence of O.E.P. Having indulged into malpractices and further held that it was the responsibility of the licensee to ensure that his licensee is not misused by nomination employers. The Director-General, however, noted that the petitioner had stated that the emigrants were the direct nominees of the principal. The Director- General also held that the petitioner had gone into partnership with Rafiq without approval of the competent Authority and this finding was based on the statement made by the petitioner that Rafiq was working with him whom he treated as his own brother. In respect of the allegation about offering bribe to the employer it was observed by the Director-General that the same will be disposed of on receipt of verification of signature of Mr. Zaidi. It is, therefore, obvious that this allegation about offering df bribe was left out and was to be considered after verification of signature. The Director-General, however, cancelled the licence of the petitioner and forfeited the security and ordered the case to be handed over to F.I.A. For further investigation in respect of extraction of illegal money.
3. The appellant had filed an appeal which was decided by the Joint Secretary on 21-10-1981. The Joint Secretary has not taken into consideration the allegation in respect of the entry of the petitioner with Rafiq in partnership nor he has considered the allegation of offering of bribe by Rafiq to the employers. It, therefore, appears that the Joint Secretary has either accepted the contention of the petitioner in these regards or has not treated the same as duly proved.
4. The Joint Secretary has held that Rs,14,000 from 9 recruits were charged but they were not provided with any job by the employers. The plea of the petitioner that he had only charged the prescribed fee from Those 9 recruits and that he was not aware, if any extra amount was .Charged from them by the employers, was not accepted by the Joint Secretary on the ground that since the appellant was the licenced promoter it was his duty to ensure that his licence was not misused by employers or any 3rd person. The Joint Secretary further held that the petitioner had not taken any steps to ensure that the emigrants were employed and further held that the petitioner was least bothered about the fate of these unfortunate persons and he, therefore, dismissed the appeal.
It appears to us that the last order of the Joint Secretary has condemned the petitioner for the act of the employer who had allegedly charged Rs,12,000 from the recruits, and it is only the vicarious liability on the basis of which the petitioner has been dealt with and punished. We have not seen anywhere in the Act or the Rules which are relevant in this case that the Overseas Employment Promoter is made responsible in any manner for the action of the employer. In any case, if th actions of the employer are treated to be the actions of the O.E.P. Then the O.E.P. Should be issued a proper show-cause notice' in respect of the same. On comparing the show-cause notice with the last order of 21-10-1981 we find that show-cause notice had saddled the petitioner himself with the charges of Rs,14,000 extraction but the order in appeal shows that the petitioner had not been able to stop the employer from charging the said amount from the recruits and, therefore, it was taken as his responsibility that he had allowed his license to be misused by the employers. In our view, the finding of the Joint Secretary has no relevance with the allegation in this respect, made in the show-cause notice, and the petitioner could not be punished for the same unless the show-cause notice had made a clear allegation to that effect. The second ground on which the Joint Secretary has passed his order is that' the petitioner did not take steps for the employment of the recruit by the, employers. Again this finding is not in consonance with the show-cause notice where there was no allegation that the petitioner had failed to make any efforts in respect of the provision of job. Even otherwise the responsibility of the O.E.P. In a case where the recruit is not getting employment abroad is provided under rule 16(6) of Emigration Rules, 1979 and the O.E.P. Is to refund the service charges of Rs, 1,450 to the recruit and Rs, 550 which are credited to the welfare fund are refunded by the Federal Government. This being the position, the petitioner could not be punished to the extent of cancellation of a licence and forfeiture of security provided by him unless and until it was positively' established that the employer was completely the fake person and that the petitioner had colluded with him in defrauding the recruits and torturing them but there is no such allegation atleast made in either the show-cause notice or found as such by the joint Secretary.
6. Consequently, we declare that the impugned orders passed against the petitioner were without lawful authority and of no effect. It would be, however, open to the respondents to give a fresh show-cause notice to the petitioner in accordance with law.
' Mr. Akram Zubari had taken us through the whole facts at great length and we are obliged to him.