COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, PESHAWAR and 2 others vs ABDUL WAHEED and 7 others

' H ALI MIRZA, J.---These eight civil petitions for leave to appeal are directed against a common judgment dated 9-9-2002 in Appeals Nos.49(P)CS to 53(P)CS, 59(P)CS, 82(P)CS of 2000 and 475(13)CS of 1999 (Najeebullah Khan and 7 others v. Central Board of Revenue and others) passed by learned Federal Service Tribunal, whereby the said appeals were allowed and thereby termination orders passed by petitioner Central Board of Revenue were set aside, with the directions the respondents would be deemed to have continued in service w.e.f, the date of their terminations.

2. Facts of the case need not be reiterated as the same have been stated in detail in the petitions as well as in the impugned judgment.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. Contention of learned Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that the learned Service Tribunal has erred in law and facts in holding that services of the respondents were terminated in violation of prescribed procedure of law merely on the ground that their services were no longer required being ad hoc appointee. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal is legal proper and based on proper appreciation of facts and law which did not call for interference by this Court in the Constitutional jurisdiction.

5. We do not find merit and substance in the contention of learned Deputy Attorney-General for the petitioners.

6. Admittedly all references and directives in respect of respondents' appointment which came from the placement Bureau or from Senior Minister or from Prime Minister Secretariat were to be made subject to the fulfilment of the prescribed qualification by concerned Competent Authority in respect of each of the respondent on the basis of personal data as to their qualification and suitability for a particular post applied for by each of the respondent. Obviously the appointments so made, were made by the Competent Authority and in case prescribed procedure was not followed by concerned authority, the appointees/respondents could be blamed for what was to be performed and done by the Competent Authority before having verified the qualification and suitability and observance of the due process before issuing the appointment orders. It is strange that the respondents who were appointed either in 1989 or 1990 were said to have come through back door or were not recruited under due process of law but due to political pressure. The petitioners do admit that the respondents do possess the required qualification and the respondent Najeebullah was also not overage at the time of appointment being domicile of FATA enjoyed relaxation in age limit. The petitioners cannot penalize the persons/respondents, who had put in more than ten years' service with them considering that there was no allegation of misconduct against them and were only to be removed on account of change in Government on the ground that they were no more required and were not appointed after observance of due process of law.The petitioners/authorities competent should be held responsible and liable for the said lapse on their part. It could not be forgotten the persons/respondents who have put in more than ten years of their service and thereby have lost all their chances to get fresh appointment elsewhere as they stood disqualified being overage and in case they are to be removed now the same would amount to hitting them hard creating problems for the Society at large considering each of the respondent being a bread earner for his family. This Court, in Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P. Zakat/Social Welfare Department v. Sadullah Khan (1996 SCMR 413) held that Competent Authority could not make the employee suffer on account of its own lapse; and in case of Syed Sikandar Ali Shah v. Auditor-General of Pakistan and others (2002 PLC (C.S.) 1027) held that the Competent Authority should have been bold enough to face political influence allegedly exerted by an employee over the Competent Authority who surrendered and obeyed the capricious and arbitrary directions of their political bosses without raising the slightest protest which depicted a cowardly and condemnable trend; so also in case of Abdul Hafeez Abbasi v.

Managing Director, Pakistan International Airlines and others (2002 SCMR 1034) this Court has reiterated the guidelines for the authorities to keep in view the process of law before making appointments. It may be observed that the learned Federal Service Tribunal has held that Appointing Authority at no stage had applied its independent mind at the time of initial appointment and carried out the directives of the placement Bureau, Senior Minister, and the President's Secretariat and at the time of termination in December, 1990 it again complied with the arbitrary decision of the Cabinet and again reinstated at another decision of Cabinet in December, 1993 by another political Government and finally in October, 1999 it complied with the instructions of the Establishment Division. This would show that the petitioners/Appointing Authorities have been acting mechanically without application of mind, therefore, the respondents cannot be made to suffer at whimsical and mechanical acts of the petitioners. We du not find that these are fit cases which require our interference in the Constitutional jurisdiction considering that acts and actions of the petitioners cannot be termed to be in accordance with law laid down by this Court.

We find that respondents' services have been terminated without any just, legal cause, therefore, these petitions have no merit, hence leave to appeal in these petitions is declined and the petitions are dismissed.

' However, we may observe that learned D.A.-G. Has challenged the interpretation to the term "ad hoc" given by the Federal Service Tribunal which plea would be dealt with by us in detail in some other suitable case as at present, the cases in hand did not call for interference even on merits considering the facts and circumstances of present cases.