' Through this Constitutional petition the petitioner has prayed for the acceptance of this writ petition and for the issuance of a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service w,e,f, the date his services were terminated with all consequential benefits.
2. The brief facts of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed on 1-7-1991 as Secretary of the WAPDA Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Sargodha registered on 27-12-1988, in accordance with bylaws and his pay was duly approved by its General Body meeting held on 6-6- 1991. The respondent No,1, upon inspection of the Society on 28-11-1998 found serious irregularities having been committed and the accounts of the Society were frozen on 30-11-1998 and thereafter its. Managing Committee having been superseded, one Ch. Muhammad Anwar, Inspector was appointed as Administrator of the Society, who took over the charge on 15-12-1998. The petitioner claims that he continued working under the, supervision of Ch. Muhammad Anwar. Administrator who was legally a substitute of the superseding Managing Committee. The Managing Committee filed a civil suit against the above-said order of supersession and obtained a stay order. The suit was subsequently dismissed. Petitioner claims that he attended the Civil Court alongwith the counsel for the Department which caused annoyance to the Ex-President of the Managing Committee. The appeal was filed by the Managing Committee before the learned District Judge, Sargodha in which the stay was granted and subsequently the charge was given to the Managing Committee, which due to the above-said annoyance prepared a fictitious resolution dated 21-4- 1999 against the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner was wilfully absent from duty and he was removed from service. On the other hand the petitioner contained working under the supervision of the Administrator till 17-7-1999 but he was verbally ordered not to attend his office w,e,f, 18-7-1999 as his services has been terminated by the Managing Committee on 21-4-1999. The petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No,2, which was dismissed vide order dated 18-10- 1999 by respondent No,2. Aggrieved by the order of the respondent No,2, the petitioner filed a revision petition before respondent No,3, which has been dismissed on 22-5-2001. Orders dated 21- 4-1999. 18-10-1999 and 22-5-2001 have been challenged through this writ petition by the petitioner with the prayer that these orders may be set aside and the petitioner be reinstated. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner never absented from duty as the Managing Committee was suspended and Ch. Muhammad Anwar, Inspector Co-operative appointed as Administrator, the petitioner continued working under his supervision and used to attend the Court even on behalf of the department causing annoyance to the Managing Committee who prepared a fictitious resolution on 21-4-1999 and dismissed the petitioner from service which order was not supplied to him and petitioner first time came to know about his dismissal from service on 17-7- 1999 when the Administrator verbally told him not to attend the office with effect from 18-7-1999 and then the petitioner filed the appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been dismissed from service on the charges of absence and misappropriation of funds without issuance of show-cause notice and without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to explain his position and to prove his innocence before the competent authority and the orders so passed are a stigma on the unblemished service career of the petitioner which are liable to be set arise on this score alone and as the petitioner has not been dealt with in accordance with law, the order of dismissal is against the principles of natural justice. It is further contended that the petitioner never absented from the duty and he continuously attended the office and working hard but the Members of the Managing Committee with mala tide intention have passed the dismissal order and the appellate authority and revisional authority have also failed to consider the arguments advanced by the petitioner and thus impugned orders are liable to be set aside being illegal and unlawful. It is further contended that under section 44-C of the Co- operative Societies Act, 1925, the Managing Committee cannot dismiss any officer but it can only recommend for the dismissal of the officer to the Registrar who can pass the appropriate order, hence the order was not passed by the Registrar is illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction which may be set aside.
3. On the other hand the learned Additional. Advocate-General, Punjab has opposed this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has been dismissed from service on the serious charges of absence and when the Committee has dismissed him, at that time the Managing Committee was working as such order was granted by the Appellate Court. It is further contended that the petitioner was a temporary employee and his services could be terminated at any time without giving him any notice. The contention of the learned Additional. Advocate-General that the petitioner was a temporary employee and could be terminated at any time cannot be accepted as the petitioner has not been terminated during the probation period but has been terminated by levelling serious allegations against him which require holding of an inquiry. Hence he has no case and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the document attached with this petition. Admittedly the petitioner was appointed by the Co-operative Society. Other facts that the Managing Committee was suspended by the concerned authorities is also an admitted fact.
Appointment of Ch. Muhammad Anwar as Administrator of the Society is also admitted. The petitioner has been dismissed from service on 21-4-1999 when the Managing Committee was suspended by the competent authority and the Managing Committee having challenged the order through a civil suit had obtained a stay order from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, by filing an appeal. The petitioner claims that the order dated 21-4-1999 has been prepared with mala tide intention and ulterior motives in order to punish the petitioner as he was pursuing the case on behalf of the department in the Civil Court. The petitioner's services have been terminated with the allegations that he is guilty of embezzlement of the amount of the Society and misusing of his authority while working as Secretary in the Society and also on the ground of absence. The dismissal of the petitioner on the ground of embezzlement and misuse of authority or absence is a stigma on his career which require thorough inquiry by the Society before the passing of the order of dismissal. The petitioner was never issued any show-cause notice by the Society and he was not afforded an opportunity of hearing and even the statement of allegations was not supplied to him and no reply was called for from him. Hence the findings of the Managing Committee regarding the embezzlement of the funds etc, are without lawful authority and without jurisdiction. I have no option except to hold that the Society has passed the order in violation of the principles of natural justice. The procedure should have been adopted by the Managing Committee and detailed inquiry should have been conducted on the charges levelled against the petitioner and the Society was bound to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It was a fit case in which formal inquiry was required to be held and the findings without the formal inquiry are without jurisdiction and without lawful authority. Even otherwise the August Supreme Court of Pakistan has held in the case of Ghulam Hadi Baloch reported in 1987 SCM R 602 that the formal inquiry is necessary before the passing of the termination/dismissal order. The order has been passed by the Society which was not competent to pass the termination/dismissal order. The Society can refer the matter to the Registrar for the removal of the service of the employee of the Society. Section 44-C of the Co- operative Societies Act, 1925 is hereby reproduced.
"Power to remove officers.---(l) An officer of a Society, by whatever name called, may be removed by the Registrar, if, on an enquiry, he is satisfied that the said officer--
(i) acts in manner pre-judicial to the interest of the Society or its members; or
(ii) has incurred any of the disqualifications or has ceased to possess any of the qualifications for being an officer provided by the Act, rules or bye-laws; or
(iii) has committed an act in respect of which the Registrar is empowered to take action under section 50-A.
5. It is crystal clear from the bare perusal of this provision of law that the Managing Committee could only recommend for the removal of the services of the petitioner and could not pass the termination order itself. Hence the impugned order is illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction which is set aside. The writ petition is accepted, and Society is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service. However, the Society can initiate fresh proceedings and can pass fresh order while adopting the procedure and after holding an inquiry and only then can refer the case to the competent authority for the removal of the petitioner if the allegations levelled against him are proved. The matter is also left open to the Registrar to decide about the payment of the back benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner may move an application to the Registrar who shall decide the same on merits.