IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI
C.P No.D-105 of 2015
Present
Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha
Samir Mir Shaikh Petitioner
Versus
Province of Sindh .. Respondents
Date of hearing 08.12.2015
Petitioner is present a/w their counsel M/s Shaikh Javed Mir and Kamran Mirza, Advocates.
Mr. Sibtain Mehmood A.A.G.
-------------
Muhammad Ali Mazhar J. Through this petition, the petitioner has challenged the Notification dated 26.12.2014.
2. The brief facts of the case are that vide Notification dated 04.12.2014 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 22 Cr.P.C, the Government of Sindh was pleased to appoint the petitioner as justice of peace within the limits of district East, Karachi for a period of two (02) years with immediate effect and petitioner was required to render the services in accordance with Section 22-A &
22-B Cr.P.C. The Notification was issued by the Home Secretary, however, just after 22 days impugned Notification was issued, whereby, the appointment of Petitioner as justice of peace was withdrawn/cancelled with immediate effect.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Notification of appointment was cancelled/withdrawn without providing any opportunity of hearing or show cause notice even no reasons have been assigned for this sudden withdrawal or cancellation of Notification. Learned counsel also referred to page 21 which is a letter dated 23.09.2014 issued to the Section Officer (Judicial-I), Government of Sindh through which the Superintendent Security, Special Branch, Karachi verified the antecedents of the petitioner and it is further stated that there is nothing found adverse against him in the record of special branch.
4. Learned A.A.G referred to comments filed by the Section Officer (Judicial-I) on behalf of Home Secretary Government of Sindh and he further referred to a letter dated 27.01.2015 attached with the comments on which he made heavy reliance. In fact this letter was issued by S.P. Clifton, District South, Karachi in which he intimated some adverse remarks against the petitioner.
5. What we have noted that this letter was issued on 27.01.2015 and the appointment of petitioner was withdrawn in the month of December 2014. So in all fairness, the letter issued in the month of January, 2015 cannot become the basis of withdrawal of notification in the month of December, 2014. It is also a fact that before cancelling Notification no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. We have also found that no other cogent and plausible reason has been shown in the comments filed on behalf of Home Secretary which may justify the withdrawal of the Notification. In fact most of the assertions made in the plaint are admitted in the comments. We are of the firm view that adverse report if any should have been confronted to the petitioner which has not been done before the withdrawal/cancellation. Under Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, it is the responsibility rather obligation of the authority to give reasons for making order.
6. In the present case not only the Notification for withdrawal issued by competent authority is hit by Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act,1897 but it was also issued in violation of principle of natural justice which could not sustain.
7. In view of above, the Notification dated 26.12.2014 is set aside, however, competent authority is at liberty to pass an appropriate order within twenty days if they want to cancel or withdraw the Notification of appointment but this will be done after providing ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
8. Petition is disposed of with pending application.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Aadil Arab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI
C.P No.D-6220 OF 2015
Present
Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha
Muhammad Usman Petitioner
Versus
Federation of Pakistan & others .. Respondents
Date of hearing 05.11.2015
Petitioner is present in person.
-------------
Muhammad Ali Mazhar J. Through this petition, the petitioner has challenged the dismissal order dated 07.12.1993. The dismissal order is available at page 45, annexure F, which reflects that the inquiry was held and since the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct, hence, he was dismissed under Standing Order 15 of West Pakistan Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Order) Ordinance, 1968. The petitioner could have challenged the dismissal order in the Labour Court but after an inordinate delay, this petition was instituted on 05.10.2015. The petition is otherwise not maintainable as an adequate and equal efficacious remedy was available at that relevant time in the Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969 in which after tendering the grievance notice, the petitioner could have filed his Grievance Petition in the Labour Court so, the petition is not maintainable on this score alone. Besides that the office has also raised the objection of laches. One office order dated 18.04.2012 is also attached with the petition at page 59 through which the petitioner was informed that competent authority has decided to reinstate his service on the following conditions:-
a). Reinstate in service from the date of dismissal i.e 07.12.1993.
b). Retirement from service on attaining the age of superannuation i.e 11.07.2009.
c). No arrears to be paid and undertaking to the effect that he will not claim arrears of pay and allowances for the intervening period from 08.12.1993. to 11.07.2009.
2. Now, in the month of October, 2015, the petitioner has challenged that in the reinstatement order that he was forced to furnish an undertaking to the effect that petitioner would not claim back benefit. In the memo of petition, the petitioner has also admitted that he was workman but since he attained the age of retirement six years, therefore, he invoked the jurisdiction of this court. No reason has been shown in the memo of petition, whereby, the petitioner prevented not to initiate legal proceedings against the office order dated 18.04.2012 which was passed subsequently with some conditions of recruitment. The petition is hit by laches also which is dismissed in limine.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Aadil Arab
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI
C.P No.D-5050 OF 2013
______________________________________________________
Order with signature of Judge
Present
Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Mr. Justice Shoukat Ali Memon
Muhammad Hussain .Versus ...NAB
Date of hearing 22.01.2015
Mr. Mustafa Hussain Advocate for the petitioner.
The petitioner is also present.
Mr. Abdul Jabbar Qureshi A.A.G.
---
Muhammad Ali Mazhar J. Through this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the Respondent No.2 be directed to appoint him to a suitable post on son quota as provided under Rule 11-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules 1974.
2. The case of the petitioner is that his father was constable in Excise & Taxation Department who expired on 09.08.2000. The petitioner was under age at the time of death of his father, therefore, he moved an application for the job on son quota on 13.12.2002, thereafter, reminders were also sent but no action was taken. A letter dated 04.03.2009 is available on record which was written by Director Excise & Taxation (Admn/MVR), Karachi to the Secretary Government of Sindh Excise & Taxation Department, Karachi and forwarded certain documents relating to the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Diver or Naib Qasid.
3. Learned counsel submits that despite fulfilling all requirement, the appointment letter was not issued.
4. The Respondent No.2 has filed the comments through learned A.A.G in which they have admitted in paragraph No.1 that father of the petitioner was working in the department. It is further admitted that in view of the Sindh Civil Servants Rules, son of the deceased employee is entitled for the job in B.P.S-1 to 15. However, in the comments they have referred to the letter dated 10.04.2003, in which the petitioner was directed to furnish his certificate of relationship with the deceased from the area Nazim and also produce the copy of Matric certificate. We reverted back to the letter dated 04.03.2009 in which most of the documents were already submitted by the petitioner except his Matriculation certificate. The petitioner submits that he has already passed Matriculation examination and he will submit marks sheet to the Respondent No.2.
5. Since all the formalities have been complied with except Matriculation certificate which will also be submitted by the petitioner, therefore, this petition is disposed of with the directions to the Respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of Rule 11-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules 1974, within a period of one month and after complying with all required formalities issue appointment letter of the petitioner.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Aadil Arab