Case Details

Citation(s)
1980 SLG 3120 = 1980 SLD 3120 = 1980 PLC 543
Service Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. 194 of 075, decided on 3rd February, 1979.
Presented By: Ghulam Rasool Sheikh, Chairman, Abdul Kadir and G. A. Mughal, Members

WAJIHUDDIN

VERSUS

PROVINCE OF SIND

Law: Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973

Section: 4

Law: Sindh Civil Servants Act, (XIV of 1973)

Section: 11

Sindh Service Tribunal Act (XV of 1973)  S. 4 read with Sind Civil Servants Act (XIV of 1973), S. 11--Proba tioner-Termination of service--Termination order indicative of simple discharge without element of misconduct-No Inquiry or show-cause notice, held, necessary-Prayer for calling for record in support of plea that termination was due to some punishment refused-Tribunal, held, not expected to go beyond record produced. P L D 1974 S C 393 distinguished.                                                                                                                         JUDGMENT GHULAM RASOOL SHAIKH (CHAIRMAN): The services of the appellant were terminated under section 11 of the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973 after expiry of 14 days from the date of receipt of order dated 20-10-1975. He filed departmental representation against this order which was rejected on 26-10-1975. Being aggrieved he has filed appeal in this Tribunal under section 4 of the Sind Service Tribunal Act, 1973. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was appointed on regular basis on the recommendations of the Public Service Commission. He relied on subsection (2) of section 11 of the Sind Civil Ser vants Act, 1973 according to which the person whose services are terminated shall ordinarily be the one who is the most junior in such cadre or grade. He, however, admitted that the appellant was a `probationer' when his service were terminated but he pleaded that it was not a termination of service simplicitor but he had been punished and removed from service for some misconduct which was never brought to his notice and no enquiry was held. To support his contention that even a probationer could not be removed from services without enquiry in case his removal was based on misconduct, he…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register