| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 3486 2016 SLD 3486 2016 PLC 1054 |
Peshawar High Court
NISAR HUSSAIN KHAN, JUSTICE AND MUSARRAT HILALI, JUSTICE
Ijaz Anwar for Petitioner.Syed Muhammad Bilal Ahmad for
Respondents.
NISAR HUSSAIN KHAN, JUSTICE AND MUSARRAT HILALI, JUSTICE
Ijaz Anwar for Petitioner.Syed Muhammad Bilal Ahmad for
Respondents.
ABDUL HASEEBVSPRINCIPAL, KARNAL SHER KHAN CADET COLLEGE, SWABI AND 2 OTHERS
Law:
Section:
(a) Captain Karnal Sher Khan Shaheed (NH) Cadet College Swabi Employees (Terms and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2013--- --------Regln. 18---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Educational and Training Institutions Ordinance (III of 1971), S.20(2)(e)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Civil service---Termination of service---Scope---Contention of petitioner-employee was that Acting Principal was not competent to pass order for termination of his services---Validity---Regulations had been framed by the Board of Governors of the College with the prior approval of Government in compliance with S.20(2)(e) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Educational and Training Institutions Ordinance, 1971 which was in complete accord with the statutory requirements---Section 20(2)(e) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Educational and Training Institutions Ordinance, 1971 did not require publication of the regulations in the official gazette---Regulations of the College were statutory in nature---Such regulations governing the services of the employees of the College were statutory in nature---Any adverse action taken in violation of the regulations was amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Captain Karnal Sher Khan Shaheed (NH) Cadet College Swabi Employees (Terms and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2013 empowered the Chairman of the Board of Governors to terminate the services of employee of BPS-17 and above---Principal could pass termination order of employee of BPS-16 and below---Petitioner was an employee of BPS-17, so termination order passed by the Acting Principal was in violation of Regulations and was not sustainable---Respondents were required to put petitioner-employee on notice and conduct inquiry where he could offer his defence as allegations of misconduct, insubordination and non-adherence to discipline and rules of the College had been leveled against him---Respondents could have taken recourse to the general rules and afforded proper opportunity to the employee to offer his defence and explain his position---Nobody should be condemned unheard when there was a charge of misconduct, stigmatizing…