2005 PLP 646 (SCMR)

RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.

Petitioner-Government of Sindh seeks leave to appeal against judgment, dated 20-4-2004 of the Sindh Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) striking down the order of removal from service passed against respondent No.1 as not sustainable and illegal and directing the Education Department to issue notification of retirement of respondent No.1 on attaining the age of superannuation.

2. Respondent No.1 being Principal was transferred from St. Patrick s College No.2, Karachi and posted as Associate Professor, Government College for Education Federal B Area, Karachi. Respondents Nos.2 Mazkoorur Rehman was posted as Principal of the College in his place, to which respondent No.1 took a serious exception and filed Constitutional petition before the High Court of Sindh, which was dismissed on the premise that matter relating to transfer/posting of civil servants being relatable to terms and conditions of service would squarely fall within the exclusive domain of the Tribunal.

3. Meanwhile, respondent No.1 was proceeded with, on the charge of disobedience of a lawful order of competent authority by not handing over the charge of office of Principal to respondent No.2 and by not assuming the office of the Associate Professor to which he was transferred. A departmental enquiry was held but as held by the Tribunal, the enquiry was fixed on 20-5-1999 at 11-00 a.m. at the office of Director Colleges Education, on which date respondent No.1 appeared but the Enquiry Officer did not turn up till 11-30 a.m. with the result that the respondent left the office. Enquiry was deferred to 22-5-1999 at 10-00 a.m. behind the back of the accused official but no intimation was sent to him. Enquiry Officer thereafter, without examining the accused official or any other witness submitted his finding that the respondent was guilty of the charge of misconduct. Acting on such report, Education Department, Government of Sindh imposed the penalty of removal from service on the respondent, which was challenged before the Tribunal. On its part, Full Bench of the Tribunal struck down the penalty imposed on the respondent but, in view of the respondent attaining the age of superannuation during pendency of the appeal, directed the department to issue notification of his retirement. It is as against this judgment that the petitioners feel aggrieved.

4. We have heard Mr. Anwar Mansoor Khan, learned Advocate-General Sindh as well as respondent No.1, who appeared in person and carefully gone through the record. Judgment passed by the Tribunal, on the face of the record, in our view, is just, proper, fair and reasonable. The Tribunal has rightly recorded that the Enquiry Officer did not reach the place of holding enquiry on the stipulated date and time and, without holding any enquiry against the respondent, submitted an adverse report to the department, which was accepted as gospel truth without application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case culminating in imposition of major penalty of removal from service.

5. We are firmly of the view that this is not a fit case in which petition for leave to appeal should have been filed and in all propriety and fairness the department should have implemented the judgment of the Tribunal instead of entering into luxury of uncalled for litigation at State expenses. Learned Advocate-General is unable to support the petition or place any convincing argument for the grant of leave. Indeed he had rendered legal opinion to the Government that no question of law being involved, this was not a fit case for appeal before this Court.

6. No question of law of public importance is spelt out in the circumstances, therefore, we dismiss this petition and refuse leave to appeal. H.B.T./C-25/S Petition dismissed.