DR. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs SECRETARY HEALTH etc

ORDER

Through this single order I intend to dispose of following three writ petitions as common question of law and facts are involved therein.

I. W.P. No 4065/2007 II. W.P. No 4137/2007 W.P. No 4142/2007 These -petitions are admitted to regular hearing and are being disposed ' of as admitted cases.

2. Briefly stated facts as those emerge out of these petitions are that the petitioners in all these writ petitions, after passing their MBBS exams, joined the Health Department, during the year 2002 and were posted in different Basic Health Units and statedly they were performing their duties perfectly in accordance with the terms of the contract since there was no complaint to their high-ups, therefore, their contract period was extended for another two years up to 31.3.2008; and that without completion of the contract, in particular when there was no complaint qua performance of duties by the petitioners, their services were terminated vide order dated 14.7.2007 with immediate effect without assigning any reasons. The respondents in their statements had contradicted the stance taken by the petitioners.

3. It is inter alia contended that the petitioners who performed their duties perfectly in accordance with the terms of their contract have not only been illegally removed from service but also they had not been paid any wages for the actual period of duties performed by them. It is averred with vehemence that the rights guaranteed to the petitioners by the constitutional of Islamic Republic of Pakistan are being violated and that it is the obligation of the state to provide to citizens employment within available resources and every employee has to be properly remunerated/paid for the duties performed by him.

4. Conversely learned Additional Advocate General upon instructions, controverts the stance taken by the petitioners and with vehemence submits that the petitioners had absconded without . permission, from their places of posting and had not performed any duties, therefore, not entitled to any relief. Adds that as per terms contained in the appointment letter, the contract was liable to termination without any notice. The same stance in categorical terms has been taken by the respondents in their parawise comments.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. In their report and parawise comments as well as during the course of arguments it has come to the light that the services of the petitioners were terminated by leveling certain allegations of absence and commission of misconduct etc., which have been denied by the petitioners. I have also minutely examined the contents of termination letter. Although no such reason has been given in the impugned order of termination still in my considered view the order of termination issued by respondents Secretary Health suffers from two flaws firstly no reasons of whatsoever nature has been assigned therein. Secondly in the report as well as comments categorical stance has been taken by the respondents in Para 8 in the following words: "The petitioner remained absent from duty and draw the salaries without performance of any official duties. He was terminated on the charge of misconduct."

By now it is well settled proposition of law that if services of any employee are dispensed with on account of any misconduct or other allegations and if he denies the same in that eventually a regular inquiry is a must. This principle equally applies to all employees whether ad-hoc, contract, contractual or permanent. No distinction can be drawn between them, for the simple reason that every employee has a right to defend himself, to get the stigma removed.

7. In view of above, the impugned orders passed by respondents Secretary Health vide which services of the petitioners have been terminated is declared to be without lawful authority.

Consequently the same is hereby set aside.

8. So far as question of payment of unpaid salaries is concerned, since the respondents have taken a categorical stance to the effect that the petitioners remained absent continuously and never performed their duties, which itself involves factual controversy and cannot be determined in constitutional petition, in view thereof the respondents shall be at liberty to hold inquiry, of course, by giving a fair opportunity in accordance with law, to the petitioners and thereafter if allegations are not proved, in that eventuality, the petitioners shall be paid salaries for the period they actually performed duties. With these observations this petition stands disposed of.