KHALID MAHMOOD CH. and others vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary, Livestock and Dairy Development

ORDER

1. ' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---Both these petitions are directed against the judgment, dated 15-8-2001 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore by which the Constitutional petitions, filed by the petitioners were dismissed.

2. ' The petitioners were appointed in the Civil Service of the Government of Punjab on ad hoc basis.

3. On the promulgation of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance), a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners stating that their appointment was made on extraneous consideration within the contemplation of section 3(e) of the Ordinance. Reply was filed by the petitioners in which they stated that they were appointed under rule 5 of the Punjab Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1978, by the Chief Minister who was the competent Authority which was not disputed, therefore, their appointment could not be treated to have been made on extraneous consideration as the provisions of the Ordinance are not attracted to their cases.

4. ' The competent Authority has not yet taken any decision on these pleas advanced by the petitioners.

5. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners has also pointed out that under the. Ordinance removal could be made only after holding elaborate enquiry by the Enquiry Officer or the Enquiry Committee constituted by the competent Authority, whereas in these petitions show-cause notice has been issued without appointment of Enquiry Officer/Committee.

6. The relevant provisions of the Ordinance show that appointment of Enquiry Officer or the Enquiry Committee is necessary before passing the final order of removal from service. The disputed show-cause notice is still at preliminary stage and after considering the replies of the petitioners if the competent Authority comes to the conclusion that it was a case of taking further proceedings under the Ordinance, it will be required to constitute an Enquiry Committee or appoint an Enquiry Officer. The Constitutional petitions in the circumstances were rightly held to be premature and dismissed as such. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity or illegality so as to warrant interference by this Court.

7. ' For the foregoing reasons, the petitions stand dismissed. The petitioners may, if any order adverse to them is passed either on merits or against the provisions of the Ordinance, may file appeals before the Punjab Service Tribunal in accordance with law.