1. NASIM HASAN SHAH. J.--The respondent, Muhammad Shafi Butt, was a confirmed Sanitary Inspector in the Municipal Committee, Gujrat. He proceeded on leave but failed to report for duty on its expiry and instead sought extentions of leave on medical grounds. His prayer was refused but notwithstanding this refusal he did not report for duty. An inquiry was held against him for this misconduct. The Administrator of the Municipal Committee, who conducted the inquiry, found that the charge of absence from duty without permission was correct. He, therefore, ordered his removal from service but also directed that this decision be brought to the notice of the House (i.e. Before a meeting of the Municipal Committee). Consequently, the matter was placed before a meeting of the House, which meeting was presided over by the same Administrator. The Municipal Committee approved the decision to remove the respondent from service vide its resolution passed on 11-1-1965.
2. The respondent filed a suit in the civil Court challenging his removal from service and seeking a declaration that he was still in the service of the Committee. The learned Civil Judge decreed the suit and this decree was upheld in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge and again by the High Court in second appeal. The learned Judge in the High Court while rejecting the second appeal relied on an earlier judgment delivered by the same High Court in Muhammad Abdullah v.
3. Road Transport Corporation PLD 1964 Lah. 743. On the basis of this judgment he held that the order of the Municipal Committee in which the decision to remove the respondent was taken having been presided over by the Administrator of the Committee (who had earlier conducted the inquiry against him .And taken a decision to remove him) was vitiated by bias as the said term is understood in law and was, therefore, invalid. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the said judgments passed by the Courts below.
4. It is submitted before us that the Administrator was not debarred from participating in the deliberations of the House and the ultimate decision taken by it was not invalid, on the ground of bias, as the Administrator being a component part of the Municipal Committee could lawfully participate in its deliberations.
5. It is also contended that in point of fact the Administrator/ Chairman of the Committee was himself competent to remove the respondent from service and that, therefore, it was really not necessary for him to have placed the matter for confirmation before the House. Consequently, even if the approval given by the House of his decision was ignored the order of removal passed against the respondent would remain operative.
6. These questions, inter alia, are of general public importance and require to be decided authoritatively by this Court.
7. This petition is, therefore, converted into an appeal and shall be heard on the present record, within six months.