ORDER CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J. -- The petitioner was appointed a part- time Legal Advisor of respondents on temporary basis on retainership of Rs. 4,000/- per month vide Notification dated 6.1.1998 by the Secretary, Government of the Punjab Local Government and Rural development department. Copy of the same was sent to respondent No. 1. The services of the petitioners were terminated by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 1 2.7.2001.
2. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the impugned order is not. Sustainable in the eyes of law. The impugned order does not contain any reason. He further submits that respondent No. 1 has no authority whatsoever to terminate, the services of the petitioner as competent authority is respondent No. 3 who has appointed the petitioner vide Notification dated 6.1.1998.
3. Mr. Naseem Sabir, Additional Advocate General submits that the petitioner was appointed purely on temporary basis as part-time Legal Advisor, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. He further submits that the petitioner was appointed till further order and competent authority has terminated the services of the petitioner, therefore, the order is valid.
4 Learned Advisor of respondent No. 1 submits that relationship of the petitioner and respondent No. 1 is that of master and servant. Respondent No. 1 did not satisfy with the services of the petitioner and has ample authority to terminate the services of the petitioner. He further submits that termination order was passed by respondent No. 1 and copy of the same [Vol.XXI Faiz Muhammad Bhatti V. Administrator, M.C.L. (Ch. Ljaz Ahmad, J.) impugned order was endorsed to Section Officer, Government of Punjab Law & Parliamentary Affairs Department, Lahore on 23.7.2001, therefore, the order was passed by the competent authority.
5. Learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal submits that respondent No. 1 has passed order under direction of respondent No. 2, therefore, same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself.
7. It is admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed by the Secretary concerned of the Government of the Punjab vide Notification dated 6.1.1998 and impugned order was passed by respondent No. 1. It is settled principle of law that a person, who has authority to appoint some one, has inherited authority to terminate the same. The impugned order itself reveals that same was not passed by competent authority, therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
8. Learned counsel of respondent No. 1 has narrated background to take action against the petitioner, which reveals that respondent No. 1 was not satisfied with the services of the petitioner, therefore, respondent No. 1 even if, competent authority, he should have to terminate the petitioner's service after notice to him. Since, the action of respondent No. 1 for termination of the services of petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law as per principle laid down in 1994 SCMR 2232 (Anisa Rehman Vs. P.I.A.C, and others). After addition of Section 24-A in General Clauses Act. It is the duty and obligation of the public functionary to pass order in the reason but the impugned order does not contain any reason, In this view of the matter, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "M/s. Airport Support Service Vs. The Airport Manager, Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, Karachi and others"
(1998 SCMR 2268). The services of the petitioner can be suspended/terminated under Rule 9(2) of the Punjab Local Council (Legal Advisor) Rules, 1987 with prior approval of the Government on one month's notice or payment of remuneration for the said period: The impennous was not taken against the petitioner in the prescribed manners, it is settled principle of law when they would be done in particular manner, it must be done in that way and not otherwise. The action of the respondents is not in terms of the aforesaid rules and condition precedent mentioned in the said rule, are not complied, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified by the following judgments:- PLD 1971 S.C. 61 (Atta Muhammad Qureshi Vs. The Settlement Commissioner, Lahore)
PLD 1971 S.C. 124 (Mansab AH Vs. Amir and 3 others)
PLD 1972 Lahore 316 (Syed Fayyaz Hussain Qadri Vs. The Administrator, LMC and 4 others)
The contentions of the learned counsel of respondent No. 1 and learned A.A.G, have no force in the eyes of law and this Court has ample jurisdiction to give direction to public functionary to act in accordance with law as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case "S.H.M. Rizvi and 5 others Vs. Maqsood Ahmad and 6 others (PLD 1 981 S.C. 612).
For what has been discussed above, the writ petition is accepted and impugned order is set aside and since the writ petition is accepted on technical part, respondents are at liberty to take action in accordance with law.