ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
C. P. No. D – 1515
of 2018
|
Date of hearing |
Order
with signature of Judge |
Hearing
of case (priority)
1. For orders on office objection at Flag-A
2. For hearing of CMA No.7813/2018 (Stay)
3. For hearing of main case
(Notice issued to respondents)
31.10.2018
Mr. Humayoun
Sheikh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Abdul
Basit Shaikh, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Mr. Zulfiqar
Ali Naich, Assistant Advocate General Sindh.
.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
This petition is in
respect of an order passed on 11.08.2018 whereby the Principal of Government
Cadet College Pano Aqil declined to confirm the services of the petitioner by
his own letter.
Learned counsel
for the petitioner has pointed out non-transparent procedure adopted for not
confirming the services of the petitioner. He submits that his rights were
violated as he was never issued any show cause notice throughout nor he was
heard by the competent authority being Board of Governors of Government Cadet
College Pano Aqil. The impugned letter of termination was patently illegal, as
claimed.
Learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.3 at the very outset submits that this petition is
not maintainable as the petitioner had remedy available under the law. He has
placed a copy of the Rules and By-Laws and submits that he has not availed the
remedy of appeal available to him under the law. He has placed reliance on Rule
37, which is a remedy of appeal to the employees. When enquired, he concedes
that it is meant for both permanent and contractual employees. He further
concedes that there is no limitation period available under the law to avail
the remedy of appeal under the law. He further concedes that in case he files an
appeal as of now after disposal of this petition, his case will be heard by the
competent authority i.e. Board of Governors of respondent No.3, which shall be
disposed of on merit after hearing the petitioner.
Heard counsel.
The letter
impugned at page 17, in fact, is a letter issued by the Principal without
complying with the requirements of the rules placed on record today by the
counsel for respondent No.3 himself. Rule provides that the appointing
authority has the power to suspend or dismiss any member of staff in BPS-16,
whereas, he was required to recommend to the Board of Governors any
disciplinary action that he may deem necessary against any member of staff in BPS-17
and above. The petitioner was an employee in BPS-17, hence, this unilateral
action is not only contrary to the rules but also non-transparent. He has to
forward to the Board of Governors for an action to be taken in accordance with
law and an opportunity should have been provided to the petitioner as it has
been conceded that even contractual employees are to be dealt with accordingly
under their own rules.
In view of the
above, the impugned notice dated 11.08.2018 is set aside, however, in case the
Principal is aggrieved of the services rendered by the petitioner, he may
recommend to the Board of Governors to take action in accordance with law and
as discussed above after hearing the petitioner and/or his counsel, if it is so
permitted under the rules.
The petition
stands disposed of along with the
listed application, in the above terms.
J U D G
E
J U D G
E
Abdul Basit