Alhamdulillah! My client, Retired Brigadier, has been reinstated to the post of Executive Director Education D.H.A., Karachi.
The plaintiff was a confirmed employee of D.H.A., but he was dismissed from service in violation of Rule 8 (b) (4) of Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority Service Rules, 2008. Services of the plaintiff were dispensed with without assigning any reason or providing an opportunity for a hearing. He could not be removed or dismissed from service without a proper inquiry and personal hearing. Defendant No.1 / 1-A, instead of exercising powers as provided under Rule 8(b)(4), which requires that "a regular employee shall not be removed or dismissed from service on disciplinary grounds without a prior show cause notice" resorted to the provision of Rule 8(b)(1) which provides that "the Administrator may dispense with the services of an employee by giving him one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof.”
However, I filed a Civil Suit and challenged the dismissal order. The dismissal order of Administrator, D.H.A., was suspended, and the plaintiff was allowed by the Hon'ble Court to resume the duty.
Hon'ble Judge dilated upon some essential principles related to the theory of 'Master and Servant.' It was laid down in the order that:-
• Employees of PDOHA cannot approach the Hon'ble High Court in Constitutional Jurisdiction, as they are regulated by the Pakistan Defence Housing Authority Service Rules, 2008, which are non-statutory.
• Though the rules of PDOHA are non-statutory, these cannot be deviated or violated at the whims and wishes of defendants. They are bound to follow and act in accordance with the aforesaid rules while deciding the fate of their employees.
• The order, passed in blatant violation of the rules, is not absolute, and it is not a principle of law that an order, once passed, becomes an irrevocable and past and closed transaction.
• It would be futile to send the case back to the authority before the petitioner's appeal is pending.
• The authority had violated the law by not providing a personal hearing to the employee. No unlimited or blanket power could be exercised to dispense with the services of regular employees.
• Defendant No.1 is a statutory body, and though it lacked statutory rules, it did not mean that they were above the law and could do anything in their whims and pleasure.
• An employee cannot be deprived of his fundamental right of due process of law.
• If the impugned order is not suspended, it would carry shame, disgrace, and stigma on his career, as he served in the Pakistan Army for his entire life.
It's a logical, rational, coherent and well-reasoned order.
I am happy to see my client reinstated to the post of Executive Director Education, D.H.A., Karachi.
#Sindh #Clifton #karachi #Pakistan #army #DHA #Cantonment #Brigadier #education #services #servant #employment #reinstatement #Justice #law #court #rights