' MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, MEMBER.---The appellant has been working as Telephone Operator against leave vacancy but constantly , since 5-11-1990. On 9-3-1995 his services were terminated but that was withdrawn on 11-3-1995 and he was restored duties.
' However, on 5-4-1995 his services were again terminated. The appellant contends that he had been constantly working in the department without any break for more than four years and the termination of his service without any cause or without any opportunity of hearing was unjustified particularly keeping in view the fact that the Department had already committed that those having more than four years continuous service will not be relieved.
2. The respondents filed written objections. We have listened to the arguments.
3. The first termination order dated 9-3-1995 which reads as follows: "Having approved by the competent Authority and consequent upon resumption of regular Telephone Operator, your services are no longer required w,e,f, 11-3-1995."
' However, that order was admittedly recalled on 11-3-1995 and the appellant was restored to his position. The second termination order dated 5-4-1995 was in these words: "In compliance to the instruction of competent authority regarding ad hoc employees recruitment during ban period having less than 1 year service with reference G.M. STR Karachi No, The following orders of Termination from service in the "Telephone Operators/Linemens" are hereby issued w,e,f, 5-4-1995." ' and the name of Muhammad Qasim, appellant appears at Serial No,4 thereof.
4. The departmental appeal of the appellant was rejected by saying: "you are hereby informed that you were appointed during ban period of recruitment imposed by the Government hence your services were terminated by the concerned Divisional Engineer. Hence your appeal is regretted."
5. In Para.2 of the written objections it is stated: "the appellant was appointed on purely temporary/leave arrangement basis and his service was terminated w,e,f, 11-3-1995 on resumption of regular Telephone Operator."
' In para. 3 it is stated: "The appellant was again adjusted against leave vacancy of Telephone Operator w,e,f, 11-3-1995 and his service was terminated w,e,f, 5-4-1995 as the appellant was appointed on temporary basis and not as permanent employee."
6. During arguments it was also stated that the appointment of the appellant was temporary and it was made during the ban period, hence it could be terminated without any notice.
7. Perusal of the above record shows that the Department has presented self-contradictory stand.
The appoiptment is either considered to be on leave vacancy or an ad hoc and the termination is stated to be caused due to resumption of the official from leave or due to the temporary employment during ban period, and there is yet another letter dated 6-2-1997 to the following effect: "The competent Authority has been pleased to decide that all daily wages and ad hoc employees who had put in more than four years service in PTCL till the date of signing the Memorandum would not be laid off. This decision was also "to apply to employees who had been working for more than four years against leave vacancies. Such employees should continue either to be adjusted" against available leave vacancies or should be employed on daily wages basis to avoid break in service. If the services of such employees have been terminated during this period, they should be taken back on duty and treating their termination period as a duty to avoid any complications in regularization of their services later on."
8. Hence there was a commitment that such employees will not be terminated and the stand of the Department being inconsistent, we are of the opinion that the impugned order was not based on solid legal footings. Even otherwise if employment of a person is made due to certain irregularity or during the period of ban, it is not the appellant who is responsible for violation of the procedure but the respondents may be at fault and the appellant cannot be penalised for their fault. There is confusion that on 9-3-1996 the employee concerned had reported back and therefore, the appellant had to be relieved. However, he was adjusted against another vacancy. Therefore, the Department does not refer to any other arrival of any official and the termination is based on the fact that he is an ad hoc employee whereas no appointment order, shows his appointment on ad hoc basis.
9. In addition to all these arguments and discussions, there is a major factor that no show-cause notice had been issued to the appellant prior to the impugned order. If there was any irregularity in the appointment, even then the appellant deserved in notice to explain his view-point before any action was taken against him. Principles of natural justice have been declared as part and parcel of every statute and, therefore, we observed that the said principle has been violated at the time of passing of the impugned order. Hence we accepted this appeal, set aside the impugned order and direct that the appellant may be restored to his position with consequential benefits. However, the Department may take appropriate action in accordance with law and the rules if they are so advised.
10. No order as to costs. Parties be informed.