2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Ainuddin Khan A.A.‑G., Sindh and A.A. Siddiqui, Advocate on Record for Petitioners. M.M. Aqil Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 28th April, 2000. NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑The petitioners, tinder Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, have impugned the judgment dated 26‑5‑1999 of Sindh Service Tribunal Karachi, whereby the appeal of the respondent was allowed.

2. Respondent, Ilyas Khichi, was appointed as A.S.‑I. and was, getting training at Police Training College. Saudabad Karachi, when his services were terminated on 1‑4‑1997 by D.I.G. Police, Larkana, in exercise of powers under rule 12.8 of the Police Rules, 1934. Said order was communicated to him through the Principal of aforesaid police training college. According to the petitioners, action was taken against the respondent due to his bad character and involvement with criminals. The respondent filed departmental appeal, which was dismissed. Thereafter, he approached the Tribunal, whereby the termination order was set aside and he was reinstated in service.

3. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioners conceded that neither any show‑cause notice was issued to the respondent nor an opportunity to defend himself was afforded to him. His contention is that since the respondent was probationer, he could be removed under rule 12.8 of the Police Rules and it was not necessary for the petitioners to have served upon him a show‑cause notice and provide him an opportunity to defend himself. In the case reported as Government of Sindh v. Muhammad Hussain and 6 others (2000 SCMR 75) a similar point was under consideration before this Court and the following was observed:‑ "The said rule no doubt indicates that officers referred to in the said rule are to be considered as probationers during the first three years of their appointment and they can be discharged from service during such period for any of the reasons mentioned in the said rule and no appeal would lie against an order of discharge. But evidently this is not a case of simpliciter discharge. Reports sent by Superintendent of Police to the Deputy Inspector‑General indicate that serious allegations of inefficiency were attributed to the respondents. If such allegations entailed their removal from service, the respondents were entitled to a show‑cause notice and an opportunity to defend themselves against the proposed action. Furthermore, no doubt rule 12.8 lays down that the officer against whom action is taken under the said rule shall not have any right of appeal but the respondents being civil servants they are governed by provisions of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The right of departmental appeal being provided to the civil servants under the relevant rules, the provisions of rule 12.8 cannot prevail over the same. Therefore, interference with the order of the Tribunal on the point is not warranted under the law.

4. Following the dictum laid down in the aforesaid reported case we hold that no case for grant of leave to appeal is made out. Besides admittedly the petition is time‑barred by 5 days and no valid explanation for condonation of said delay has been furnished. On this ground also, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. In consequence, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. Q. M.H./G‑126/S Petition dismissed.