1. MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.---This is an appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 from the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 20-1-1982 whereby the said petition was dismissed.
2. 2.The appellant was an employee of Lahore Municipal Corporation but later on his services were transferred to the Lahore Improvement Trust where he was absorbed. While serving as a Staff Officer his services were terminated by the respondents by issuing an order on 15-1-1980 purportedly under Regulation No.21(i) of the Lahore Development Authority (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1978. He challenged that order by filing the Constitutional petition out of which this appeal has arisen which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the order dispensing with the services of the petitioner was in consonance with the regulations and no exceptions could be taken thereto.
3. 3.In support of this appeal learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant's service could not be terminated without giving him an opportunity or being heard and as such the impugned order was a nullity in the eyes of law. Reliance in this respect was placed by the learned counsel on Pakistan and others v. Public at large and others (PLD 1987 SC 304) and Siddique Ahmed Khan etc. v. Karachi Metropolitan Corporation etc. (1988 CLC 1877) as also the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. P.I.A.C. And another (1994 SCM R 2232).
4. 4.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have, however, defended the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and has argued that on completion of 25 years service it is open to the authority to retire any of its employees. Learned counsel have also objected to the maintainability of this appeal by arguing that the impugned order of the Managing Director of the respondent was appealable before the Director-- General and, therefore, no appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 could be filed.
5. 5.Taking up the question of maintainability of the appeal first it is to be seen that through the Lahore Development Authority (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Regulations provide the forum before which certain appeals would lie but it does not confer any right of appeal nor does it specify as to what orders could be appealed against before the higher authority. The respondent's learned counsel has, however, pointed out that regulation No.22 makes the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 applicable to the service of the appellant and as the appeal is provided but rule 13 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 the present appeal is incompetent.
6. 6.We are not impressed with this contention of the learned counsel. It is true that by virtue of Regulation No.22. The Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 apply to the service under the Authority but according to rule 13 (ibid) an appeal only lies against an order imposing penalty upon a civil servant. In the present case, the impugned order is not outcome of any charge against the appellant nor have the services, been terminated as a result of any disciplinary action or as a penalty. On the other hand, the impugned order has been passed under Regulation No.21(i) of the Lahore Development Authority (Appointment and Conditions of Service)
7. Regulations, 1978 which do not speak of any penalty as a result of disciplinary proceedings but provides that after the expiry of period of more than 25 years a servant can be retired. This retirement is quite distinct and separate from compulsory retirement effected as a disciplinary measure. Therefore, preliminary objection fails and is, therefore, over ruled.
8. 7.So far as the merits are concerned learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to deny that before passing the order of retirement the appellant was not granted any opportunity of being heard. It is by now well-- settled that even if no hearing is provided in the relevant statute yet if an action detrimental to the interest of a person is to be taken he must be given a notice and an opportunity of being heard as these minimum principles of natural justice are to be read in every statute. The latest judgment on the question viz. Mrs. Anisa Rehman's case (1994 SCM R 2232) clearly supports this proposition. It is also to be noticed that the Supreme Court has gone to the extent of holding that if an opportunity of being heard is not provided in a statute the provision itself would be void being against the principles of Islamic jurisprudence.
9. 8.The respondent's learned counsel attempted to argue that the service of the appellant is not governed by the statutory rules and as such his services could legitimately be dispensed with without granting an opportunity of hearing. This argument of the learned counsel though supported by certain other cases cannot be accepted in view of the pronouncement in Anisa Rehman's case (1994 SCM R 2232).
10. 9.Be that as it may it is also to be noted that the' service under the Lahore Development Authority is not governed by the principle of master and servant by the statutory rules and regulations framed pursuant to the provisions of sections 44 and 45 of the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975. A perusal of the Lahore Development Authority (Appointment 'and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1978 clearly shows that these regulations have been framed by the Lahore Development Authority in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by section 43. It cannot, therefore, be argued that the employment could be governed by the principle of master and servant.
10. Mr. Mahboob Ahmad, respondent's learned counsel has, however, relied upon Lahore Development Authority v. Abdul Shafiq (1992 PLC 1214) in support of his contentions that the service in the Lahore Development Authority is not governed by statutory rules of service. The reliance of the learned counsel on the cited judgment is wholly inapt as that case is clearly distinguishable and has no applicability here. In that case the question before the Court was that whether the regulations framed by the Lahore Development Authority have the status of the statutory rules within the meaning of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
11. Ordinance, 1958 and the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 according to which if there were statutory rules of service the aforesaid to acts would not apply. It was held that the regulations framed by the authority do not have the status of statutory rules. That question, however. Has no relevancy here for even if there be no statutory rules yet the regulations having been framed under section 45 of the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975 would govern the service under Authority.
12. Furthermore, it is to be seen that these regulations were approved by the Martial Law Administrator, Punjab on 30-4-1978.
11. It follows from the above that the services of the petitioner were terminated illegally and the impugned order does not have any legal effect. It has, however, been pointed out by the respondent's learned counsel that on an application made by the appellant himself he is retired from service with effect from 31-12-1982. In this view of the matter the appellant shall not be entitled to any relief in respect of the period subsequent to 31-12-1982.
13. This petition is allowed in the above terms with no order as to costs.