2016 PLP 189 (SCMR)

SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.

Civil Petition No.316-K of 2015.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents in both petitions were appointed on different dates in December, 2012 and April, 2013 as Constables (BS-5) for a period of three years. It was the case of the respondents that in fact their appointment letters were never posted to them nor were they intimated about the same through any means i.e. telephonically or otherwise but they themselves kept on enquiring and finally on various dates between the month of June to August, 2013, when they went to the Police authorities, they were handed over their appointments letters. Ultimately, on joining the police service, the Respondents were dismissed on the ground that they have joined belatedly. The Respondents impugned their letter of dismissal dated 09.09.2013 (which is common to all) before the learned High Court by filing Constitution Petition No.D.1282 of 2014 on 03.07.2014 It was the case of the Respondents before the learned High Court that in fact they were verbally informed about their dismissal and they could only obtain copies of their dismissal order in the middle of June, 2014 and hence without any waste of time, they filed the Petition before the High Court in the 1st week of July, 2014. The learned High Court vide order dated 26.03.2015 directed that as the Respondents were civil servants therefore, their cases have to be adjudicated before the Sindh Service Tribunal and hence transferred the same there. Vide impugned judgment the learned Service Tribunal reinstated the Respondents. Hence the present petition.

2. Mr, Mukesh Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General Sindh has firstly assailed the impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal on the ground of limitation, as according to him, all the Respondents were dismissed on 09.09.2013 and they had 30 days time within which to approach the learned Tribunal but instead they approached the learned High Court on 03.07.2014, in this regard, he has cited. Rule 12.21 of the Police Rules, 1934 whereby no appeal is provided against an Order of dismissal of temporary Constables. Consequently, according to him their cases would be covered by section 4(1) of Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973.

3. On merits, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that under Rule 12.21 of the Police Rules, 1934 a Constable who is unlikely to be an efficient police officer may be discharged by the Superintendent at any time within three years of enrolment and there is no appeal against an order of discharge under this rule. Consequently, according to him, as the Respondents joined their service belatedly, they were inefficient and accordingly rightly dismissed from service.

4. On the other hand, the Respondents present in-person maintained that in fact they had never been sent their letters of appointment through any postal means nor were they informed of the same through any other means but they collected the same through their own efforts through Police department after undertaking many hardships on the dates mentioned thereon under their signatures and they immediately joined the service. So also they maintained that even their letters of dismissal from service were not sent to them by registered post AD and they were verbally informed about the same. According to them, they received their dismissal orders in the 2nd week of June, 2014 and they approached the learned High Court by filing Constitution Petition and ultimately their cases were transferred to the Service Tribunal.

5. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General as well as the Respondents and have also perused the record carefully. We have queried the learned Additional Advocate General whether either the Respondents' letters of appointment or their dismissal orders were ever sent to them by registered post AD or were they ever informed about them by any means either telephonically or verbally, to which he replied in the negative after consulting the Police Officers present in Court. In these circumstances, we have no option but to believe the Respondents when they say that they personally collected their letters of appointment on the dates mentioned thereon and hence we are of the view that in such circumstances, there could not be any act of inefficiency on the part of the Respondents so as to merit their dismissal.

6. As to the objection of limitation, again there is nothing on record to establish as to when the dismissal orders were dispatched to the Respondents, therefore, once again, we have to believe the Respondents that they have personally collected their dismissal orders in the middle of June, 2014 and thereafter they filed the Constitution Petition on 03.07.2014 before the learned High Court, which was treated as an appeal by the learned High Court and sent as such to the learned Service Tribunal. Hence, the same would be treated by us to be filed within 30 days time from the date when the Respondents' received their dismissal orders and as such not beyond limitation.

7. For the foregoing reasons, we do not see any merit in this Petition as such the same is dismissed accordingly, Leave to appeal is declined. Thy respondents shall be taken back in service on the terms set forth in the impugned judgment.

8. Civil Petition No.317-K of 2015.

In this case, as according to the learned Additional Advocate General, Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have been given fresh appointments consequent upon their fresh applications, etc., therefore, this Petition to their extent has become infructuous and dismissed accordingly. Insofar as respondent No.3 is concerned, in view of the discussion made herein above this petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. MWA/P-7/SC Petition dismissed.