' The petitioner was employed as Area Manager with the respondents when on 9-8-1993 a publication appeared in 'Daily Nawa-e-Waqat', Lahore regarding his dismissal from service with four others about which he claims to have acquired knowledge on seeing publication of a notice in 'Daily Nawa-eWaqat' Lahore in its issue of 9-8-1993. In the said publication the petitioner, Mumtaz Ahmad Chaudhry, Daud Nasir, Iftikhar Ali and Abdur Rehman were notified as having been dismissed from service on the basis of a charge-sheet dated 2-8-1993. It was mentioned in the said notice that the petitioner and others had been dismissed from service on account of misconduct which was presumed to be proved against them as no reply was submitted by them to the charge-sheet. It was also mentioned that the above aforesaid persons were dismissed'from service with effect from 8-8-1993.
2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not served with the charge-sheet and that the respondents have failed to prove even before this Court that the petitioner was ever served with the charge-sheet. My attention has been drawn to the reply of the respondents where in paragraph 4(III)(f) the respondents have explained as under:-- ' the respondent No, 1, issua charge-sheet on 2-8-1993 stating the whole misconduct and asking the petitioner to give reply within seven days of receipt of the said notice. Meanwhile the respondent No, 1 also suspended the petitioner. One mode adopted for serving charge-sheet was that Sector Head of the petitioner was ordered to deliver the charge-sheet and suspension order personally to the petitioner in the presence of Management representative and he was also directed to seal Area Manager's office. The Sector Head vide its report dated 3-8-1993 addressed to the respondent No, 1, informed that he visited the office of the petitioner on 3-8-1993 in the company of management representative Mr. Nafees Lodhi. The petitioner was sitting in his office and he was asked to receive charge-sheet and suspension order but the petitioner refused to receive both. As abundant caution second mode for service of charge-sheet upon the petitioner was by despatching the charge-sheet and suspension order under registered cover through Post Office."
' No document has been filed with the reply to support the contention as given above and in the absence of such annexure, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it be presumed that there was no evidence of such service.
3. The next point argued at the Bar was that even if it be assumed that the service was effected on 3-8-1993 the order of dismissal was passed well within the period of seven days and was a contravention State Life Employees (Service) Regulation, 1973.
4. Objection has also been raised regarding the competency of General Manager to pass the orders of dismissal. The appointing authority of the petitioner was Executive Director under para. 10(b) of Regulations (supra). The petitioner having been dismissed by the General Manager was junior in rank to the appointing authority. The order of dismissal was without lawful authority.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also raised the point of discrimination between all the five persons dismissed/notified to have been dismissed from service vide publication in the 'Daily Nawa-i-Waqat' mentioned above. M/s. Mumtaz Ahmad, Daud Nasir and Iftikhar Ali were re- instated on their filing representations whereas Writ Petition No, 14181 of 1993 was filed by Abdur Rehman and, during the pendency of the said petition the orders of dismissal were withdrawn by the respondents but in case of the present petitioner though the petition was filed the same day the respondents have made a discrimination and due to mala fides the respondents were insisting on an order of dismissal which was not only without lawful authority but was also discriminatory and repugnant to Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
6. It was argued that the petitioner was denied his right of defence and was dismissed from service within the period which was, in all cases, to be given to the petitioner for preparing his defence.
Para. 31(2)(i) of Regulation 1973 being mandatory the dismissal was void ab initio.
7. This is a common ground between the parties that the petitioner was governed by State Life Employees (Service) Regulation, 1973. These Regulations were framed and notified with the previous approval of the Federal Government by State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan in exercise of powers conferred by Article 49 of the Life Insurance Nationalization Order, 1972 (P.O. No, 10 of 1972). Para. 31(2)(i) and para. 10(b) of the Regulations supra are relevant and are reproduced:- "Para. 31
(2) For the punishment of dismissal, the following- procedure shall be compulsory:--
(i) A charge-sheet, alongwith a statement of allegations levelled against the employee, shall be served on him. While serving the charge-sheet, the employee shall be given reasonable time, not being less than 7 days to produce any evidence in his defence. He will also be allowed to be heard in person if he so wishs.
' Para. 10
(a) ...................
(b) Appointment to all posts in the Corporation in Pay Scales 8 to 13 shall . Be made by the Executive Director (Administration)."
8. The respondents having been proceeded ex parte the comments filed by the respondents have been minutely perused. I am satisfied that .No proof of service of charge-sheet on the petitioner was annexed to the reply. Even the copy of the charge-sheet and statement of allegations regarding petitioner have not been enclosed with the reply and reliance was placed on the copy of charge-sheet and statement of allegations relating to one Liaqat Ali. I can safely assume, in the circumstances, that the charge-sheet and statement of allegations against the petitioner, proof of service of the petitioner and the alleged postal receipt regarding despatch of charge-sheet was not in existence.
9. The golden rule of Audi Alteram Partem was also grossly violated and the petitioner was condemned unheard against all canons of natural justice. Reliance is placed on Messrs Faridsons Ltd., Karachi and another v. Government of Pakistan, through its Secretary and another PLD 1961 SC 537). The Rule of Audi Alteram Partem was not confined to proceedings before the Courts but also extended to all proceedings. It was so held by their Lordships in the Supreme Court in their judgment in Chief Commissioner, Karachi and another 'V. Mrs. Dina Sohrab Katrak PLD 1959 SC 45).
At page 50 of the Reports their Lordships observed, the above rule of justice is not confined to proceedings before Courts but extends to all proceedings by whomsoever held, which may affect the person or property or other rights of the parties concerned in the dispute. As a just decision in such controversies is possible only if the parties are given the opportunity of being heard, there can be, as regards the rights of hearing, no difference between proceedings which are strictly judicial and those which are in the nature of a judicial proceeding though administrative in form "
10. Even if it be assumed that the petitioner was served with some charge-sheet and statement of allegations the same was alleged to have been done on 3-8-1993 and the minimum period to be given to the petitioner in such a case was seven days for his defence. Para. 31(2) of Regulations (supra) was mandatory. Dismissal orders were passed on 8-8-1993 and, therefore, the orders having been passed within seven days of alleged service have no legal sanctity and are liable to be struck down.
11. The orders of dismissal are also against para. 10(b) (supra) as the General Manager/respondent was not the appointing authority of the C petitioner. The orders of dismissal are liable to be quashed having been passed without lawful authority.
12. The petitioner has been discriminated against and the respondents (D have failed to show special circumstances which could have deprived the petitioner from the same indulgence which were granted to the other four employees mentioned in the Notice published in 'Daily Nawa-i- Waqat'. The dismissal of the petitioner was also against the right guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Article 25 of the constitution, 1973 guaranteed right of equal treatment and in the present case the petitioner was, though equally placed with other employees notified as dismissed was not treated alike in liabilities. Reliance is placed on Government of Balochistan through Addl. Chief Secretary v. Azizullah Memon and 16 others PLD 1993 SC 341 and Saeed-ud-Din v. Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P. Finance Department and 3 others (1990 CLC 8). The order of dismissal was discriminatory and against all principles of natural justice.
13. The writ petition is accepted. The orders of dismissal of the petitioner as published in 'Daily Nawa-e-Waqat' in its Issue of 9-8-1993 are quashed, being arbitrary, without lawful authority and discriminatory and against all canons of natural justice. The petitioner shall be deemed to be in service of respondents with all the consequential benefits. The respondents shall pay costs of the petition to the petitioner assessed at Rs,500.