This Constitutional petition was instituted by the petitioner to challenge the order dated 24-8-1995, whereby, he was suspended from service and later on, his services were terminated vide another order dated 14-1-1996 without issuance of any show-cause notice or enquiry as enjoined by the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 which was made applicable to the employees of Punjab Small Industries Corporation vide Notification No, V-12-21/76, dated 2nd November, 1981 issued by the Secretary Industries, Government of the Punjab, whereby, the Governor had accorded approval to the adoption of said Rules.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was serving as Senior Clerk in the Punjab Small Industries Corporation with effect from 6-2-1982. He was confirmed in the service on 8-2-1983. The petitioner was thereafter involved in a murder case registered under section 302, P.P.C. He was arrested on 22-8-1995 in the aforesaid case and sent to the District Jail, Lahore. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 24-8-1995 with effect from 22-8-1995 passed by respondent No, 4.
Later on, he was removed from services vide order dated 14-1-1996 with retrospective effect i,e, from 22-8-1995 which was the date on which he was involved in the murder case.
3. Both the impugned orders are challenged on the ground that those were passed in violation of Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 which clearly states that if a civil servant is convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude which had led to a sentence of fine or imprisonment, he may, after being given a show-cause notice be dismissed, removed from service or reduced in rank without following the procedure laid down in rules 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Rules (ibid). Since the petitioner was not allegedly served with any show-cause notice because of his confinement in the jail nor he was heard, therefore, the order terminating his services was alleged to be illegal.
4. The writ petition was resisted on the ground that the petitioner was a workman according to the definition given in the National Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and as such should have availed the provisions contained in section 25-A of the said Ordinance for the redressal of his individual grievance. Since no notice for redressal of grievance was given under the aforesaid section, therefore, the writ petition being pre-mature was allegedly liable to be dismissed.
Secondly, it was contended that the petitioner was involved in the murder case and as such was rightly suspended from service and also subsequently, his services were terminated in accordance with law as no enquiry was required to be held. It was, however, submitted that notices were issued to the petitioner at his home address but those could not be served as the petitioner was lodged in the jail as under trial.
5. The analysis of the above facts will clearly show that two sets of law cannot be made applicable to an employee simultaneously. In the instant case, the provisions contained in the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 were adopted vide notification referred to above and as such, the terms and conditions of such civil servants would be regulated by the aforesaid Rules and not by the National Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which lays down the remedy and procedure for a grievance arising out of the rights guaranteed under that law. Any disciplinary action against an employee of the Punjab Small Industries Corporation was to be initiated and proceeded with in accordance with the Rules (ibid). However, while passing the impugned orders, the competent Authority did not indicate the provision of law under which it had proceeded. Since the disciplinary action on the ground of misconduct was taken, therefore, the provisions of Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 would be applicable. As such, the objection that the grievance should have been got redressed by the petitioner under section 25-A of the National Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 appears to be misconceived.
6. Now coming back to the facts of the case, the petitioner was suspended from service on his involvement and arrest on the charge of murder. The suspension order, therefore, appears to be unexceptional. However, the order regarding the termination of his services on that charge calls for deeper analysis in view of the Rules (ibid). The penalty in the form of termination from services can be inflicted in view of the provisions contained in Rule 9 which runs as follows:-- "(1) Where a civil servant is convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude which has led to a sentence of fine or imprisonment, he may, after being given a show-cause notice be dismissed, removed from service or reduced in rank without following the procedure laid down in rules 5, 6, 7 and 8."
7. The provisions of Rule 9 would be attracted only after a civil servant is convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude. Admittedly, the petitioner was not yet convicted when the impugned order dated 14-1-1996 terminating his services was passed. As such, the procedure laid down in Rules 5, 6, 7 and 8 could not be dispensed with before making the impugned order. It is also clear from the facts of the case that the show-cause notice was never served upon the petitioner nor he was heard before inflicting the major penalty. Since the murder case is yet pending, therefore, the provisions contained .in Rule 9 would be inapplicable and the procedure laid c down in Rules 5 to 8 would be attracted before any major penalty is awarded to the petitioner.
8. In view of my above discussion, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order dated 24-8-1995, thereby, the petitioner was placed under suspension on account of his involvement in a murder case is Maintained and as such, he shall be entitled to receive the emoluments for the period of suspension in accordance with law. However, the order dated 14-1-1995, whereby, his services were terminated without following the procedure D contained in Rules 5 to 8 of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 is illegal and void and is accordingly set aside. It shall, however, be open for the departmental authorities to proceed against the petitioner afresh in the light of the provisions contained in Rules 5, 6, 7 and 8, or on his conviction in the murder case, under Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975.
9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.