2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.

This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against Order, dated 3-7-2001 passed by learned Sindh Service Tribunal at Karachi in Appeal No. 44 of 1998 (Makhdoom Ayaz Ahmed Siddiqui v. Senior Superintendent of Police and others).

2. Brief fats of the case are that the respondent alongwith others was appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspector after written test and interview by D.I.G. Police, Hyderabad Ranage after fulfilment of all formalities under the Rules and was posted to Police Line, Dadu under the appointment order, dated 21-12-1995 issued by Senior Superintendent of Police, Dadu and thereafter was sent for Probationers A.S.-I. Police Course at Police Training Centre, Saeedabad, Karachi where he remained for about one and a half year and passed the physical training and intermediate school courses. The respondent was also put to various tests in the aforesaid Training -Centre and after his relieve from the Police Training Centre joined Police Line, Dadu and from there he was transferr4d to Hyderabad District under the order, dated 22-9-1997 of the D.I.G. Police Hyderabad. The respondent all of a sudden received a letter, dated 25-10-1997 of D.I.G. Police whereby he was discharged from service therefore, he filed departmental appeal and then filed appeal before the Sindh Service Tribunal and his appeal was allowed and he was reinstated as per impugned judgment.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent in person and perused the record. .

4. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order of discharge passed by the D.I.G. Police, Hyderabad Range was legal and proper therefore, no .interference was required by the Service Tribunal therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Reliance is placed upon Amjad Ali and others v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education and others (2001 SCMR 125).

5. The respondent in person submitted that the order of the Tribunal is legal and proper and the respondent was removed without any lawful cause. He further submitted that services of some of his colleagues viz. Amir Murtaza, Muhammad Hussain, Abdul Majeed, Faisal Shafi, Atta Muhammad, Ghulam Qadir, Abdul Ghani.and Rafiq Ahmed were also terminated with him. They had also challenged their orders of termination before the Service Tribunal in Appeals Nos. 69 of 1998, 31, 35, 49, 50, 51, 60 and 61 of 1998, their appeals were allowed and were ordered to be reinstead. He also submitted that Government of Sindh preferred Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 695-K of 1999, 256-K to 259-K, 261-K, 262-K and 267-K of 1999 before this Court but the leave to appeal was declined and petitions were dismissed vide judgments, dated 25-4-2000 and 9-7-1999 passed by this Court. He also submitted that Civil Review Petitions Nos. 37-K to 43-K of 1999 against the order of this Court, dated 8-7-1999 were also preferred but the same were also dismissed as per order, dated 22-12-1999. He has placed all these judgments on record as Part-II. The learned Additional Advocate General when confronted with the said judgments of this Court was unable to say as to why in the instant case which being of identical nature order of reinstatement of the respondent should not be maintained.

6. This Court in the above judgment has maintained the orders of reinstatement of the learned Sindh Service Tribunal and the case of the respondent in the instant petition is also one of the above-said cases, therefore, no interference is called for by us in the instant petition, considering that no other ground for our interference is made out. The impugned judgment is based on cogent, legal and valid reasons. The facts of the case-law cited (supra) are quite different and distinguishable to the facts of the instant case, consequently is of no help to the petitioner's case. Accordingly leave to appeal is declined and petition is dismissed. S.A.K./S-8/S Leave refused.