Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 3109/S of 1979, decided on 24th November, 1986.

‑‑‑S.3‑‑Petitioner's appointment as employee from 1‑7‑1977‑‑Letter of appointment issued on 20‑7‑1977‑‑Petitioner receiving his salary and other service benefits with effect from 1‑7‑1977‑‑Six months' probation period of employee also counted from 1‑7‑1977‑‑Where all along petitioner had availed himself of service benefits, on of his appointment from 1‑7‑1977, it would not lie in his mouth to contend that his date of appointment was 20‑7‑1977 and not 1‑7‑1977‑‑Peti tioner's appointment being before 5th July, 1977. his case, held, fell within ambit of S.3 with regard to his removal from service.

‑‑‑Lacking reasoning‑‑Value of‑‑Precedent not embodying thread of reasoning which is its essential feature, held, would not have much weight to carry persuasive value.

‑‑‑S.3‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑Removal of a Corporation employee‑‑Omission to mention factum of "public interest" in removal order‑‑Effect‑‑Disclosure of factum of "public interest"., held, was not essential to the validity of order for removal from service‑‑Where order passed by a public authority was challenged, Court could look into the record of the authority to explore explanation for sustenance of such order and refuse to intervene if action taken was found warrantable‑ ‑Petition being devoid of merit was dismissed.

Ejaz Anwar for Petitioner.

Aftab Ahmad Khan for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 24th November, 1986.

The petitioner was serving as Cameraman in Pakistan Television Corporation but on 3‑12‑1978 was removed from service. This order was made in pursuance of section 3 of the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978 which is reproduced below:‑

"3. Certain persons to be liable to removal or reversion.‑ Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, or in the terms and conditions of service a person in corporation appointed or promoted during the period from the first day of January 1972, to the fifth day of July 1977, may be removed from service, or reverted to his lower post or grade, as the case may be without notice, by the President, or a person authorised by him in this behalf on such date as the President, or as the case may be, the person so authorised may, in the public interest direct."

The order dated 3‑12‑1978 is under challenge in this writ petition and it is argued that since the petitioner was appointed after 5th July 1977 his case was not covered by section 3 ibid and thus, his removal from service was without lawful authority. This argument is founded on appointment letter dated 20th July, 1977 (Annexure 'B'), which in so far as relevant for the purpose of this case, is reproduced below: ‑

....You are appointed as a Cameraman in (Group‑5) in the pay scale of Rs. 750‑50‑1500, with effect from 1‑7‑1977. Your starting emoluments as a Cameraman (Group‑5) with effect from 1‑7‑1977 are fixed as under:‑

2. As a Cameraman (Group‑5) you will be on probation for a period of 6 months beginning from 1‑7‑1977."

2. Relying on this appointment letter, it is argued that notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner is shown to have been appointed w.e.f. 1‑7‑1977, in law he shall be deemed to have been inducted into service on 20‑7‑1977 when the letter of appointment was issued. Support for this view is sought from a judgment dated 11‑3‑1980 rendered by a Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 5820‑S of 1978.

3. I do not feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel fort the petitioner. On behalf of the respondents it has categorically been asserted that the petitioner received his salary and other service benefits with effect from 1‑7‑1977. There is nothing on the record suggestive of an inference to the contrary; rather this assertion finds support from the letter dated 8th January, 1978 (Annexure 'C'). It shows that six months' probation period of the petitioner.) referred to in his appointment letter was also counted from 1‑7‑1977 with the result that he was confirmed with effect from 1‑1‑1978. Thus all along, the petitioner availed himself of the service benefits, on the basis of his appointment w.e.f. 1‑7‑1977. It now does not lie in his mouth to contend that his date of appointment was 20‑7‑1977 and not 1‑7‑1977. His case, therefore, fell within the mischief of section 3 ibid.

4. As regards the decision in Writ Petition No. 5820‑S/78, I may) say and say so with respect that it does not embody that thread of reasoning which is the hall mark of a precedent. It therefore, does not have much weight to carry pursuasive value as a precedent and thus, cannot lend any support to the cause of the petitioner.

5. It was next urged that section 3 could be put into service only in the public interest but the impugned order does not disclose that removal of the petitioner from service involved any such public interest."

6. The circumstances constituting the background of the petitioner's appointment as Cameraman have been enumerated by the respondents in paragraph No.l of the written statement which usefully may be quoted as under:‑

"Para. 1 of the petition is admitted to the extent that the petitioner as an apprentice Cameraman on 21‑8‑1976. However, the petitioner was not fit for the said appointment and was appointed under political pressure. A copy of the General Manager Television Centre, Lahore's letter No. GM‑2/13803, dated 3‑5‑1976 is enclosed as Annexure 'D'. A copy of Malik Muhammad Akhtar's (the then Minister) D.O. No. 364/76‑M, 17‑6‑1976 to Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khan, ex‑Minister for Information & Broadcasting is Annexure 'E'. A copy of the notice of Director, Administration k Personnel to the effect that Mr. Tariq Mahmood was not qualified as an apprentice Cameraman, is also attached as Annexure 'F'.

The documents referred to in this paragraph form part of the written statement and I have gone through the same. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, these documents furnished a valid basis for invocation of section 3. There is substance in this argument. As regards the omission to mention the factum of "public interest" I do not think that such a disclosure in the order dated 3‑12‑1978 is essential to the validity thereof. On principle, when the order passed by a public authority is challenged, this Court can well look into the record of the authority to explore an explanation for the sustenance of such order and refuse to intervene if the action taken, is, found warrantable.

7. As all the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner have failed this writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

A.A./T‑14/L.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.