' NUR AHMAD SHAH (MEMBER-II)---This is an appeal under section 4 Sindh Service Tribunal Act, 1973.
The facts are: The appellant was initially appointed in the Sindh Sugar Corporation on 17-12-1977. He was holding the charge of General Manager Dadu Sugar Mills when he was transferred and posted as Deputy Secretary, Chief Minister Secretariat on deputation on 13-3-1997. From there, his services were placed at the disposal of Agriculture Department for his absorption against the post of Director (Admn.) in BS-19 Sindh Seed Corporation (SSC) on 24-11-1997. However, his absorption was cancelled by the Services and General Administration Department (S&GAD) and he was repatriated to the Sindh Sugar Corporation on 23-8-1999. He reported for duty to the Sugar Corporation which was in the process of being disbanded. He was subsequently absorbed as District Zakat Officer (BS-17) in the Zakat and Ushar Department on 16-11-1999. Against the S&GAD notification dated 23-8-1999 he went in appeal before the Department which could not decide it within 90 days. Hence this appeal.
' The respondent No.1 who issued the impugned notification states that the appellant's request for absorption as Deputy Secretary was rejected, that he managed his absorption as Director Seed Corporation through his influence in the Chief Minister's Secretariat, and that his absorption was against the provisions of Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, as he was neither declared surplus nor the post held by him was abolished.
2. Heard Ghulam Sarwar Chandio for .The appellant and A.A.G. Chaudhary Muhammad Iqbal and Abdul Shabbir Shaikh for the respondents. Perused the record. The counsel for the appellant states that the impugned order is void because it was issued without a show-cause notice. He relies on the following case laws:-- (i). 1992 PLC (C.S.) 1127
(ii) 1992 PLC 299
(iii) 1992 PLC (C.S.) 162
(iv) PLD 1969 SC 407
(vi) 1996 SCMR 1350. (viii)1996 PLC (C.S.) 312. (viii) 2001 PLC (C.S.) 533 ' The A.-A.G. Contends that the absorption being illegal it was rightly rescinded by the competent authority.
3. The appellant was the Chief (Recovery) in the Head Office Sindh Sugar Corporation when he was made Acting General Manager, Thatta Suggar Mill in his own pay and scale (OPS) on 8-11-1995.
Later, on 21-4-1996 he was transferred and posted as Acting General Manager Dadu Sugar Mill. His OPS posting as General Manager and that, too, in an officiating capacity suggests that he did not hold the rank (BS-19) of General Manager. This is confirmed by the fact that he was posted as Deputy Secretary in the Chief Minister Secretariat on deputation basis on 13-3-1997. The post of Deputy Secretary is, without doubt, in BS-18. He was, thus, clearly as BS-19 officer. His absorption against a post of Director (Admn.) in BS-19 in Sindh Seed Corporation could not be in order. The respondent No.1 in the written statement, states that after the appellant's request for absorption as Deputy Secretary was rejected, the Secretary to then Chief Minister wrote a letter proposing his (appellant's) absorption as Director SASO/Seed Corporation in Agriculture Department despite resistance by the Department which reported no vacancy of the post of Director in SASO or Seed Corporation.
4. The Agriculture Department resubmitted the case for the withdrawal of the appellant's absorption on 16-6-1999 because, the Department pointed out, it had been made against the provisions of rules. The Government reviewed the matter and rescinded the absorption. This the competent authority did on the principle of poenitentiae. The appellant's absorption as Director in BS-19 was void ab initio. He was in BS-18 and could at best be absorded against a post of a equivalent grade and that too subject to the fulfilment of rules. Instead, he was adjusted against a post which he was not eligible to hold.
5. In fact, the appellant's absorption itself at that stage was open to question. He was neither declared surplus nor the post which he was holding in the Chief Minister Secretariat was abolished.
In March 1997, he was appointed as Deputy Secretary in the Chief Minister's Secretariat on deputation basis. In just 8 months on 24-11-1997, he was absorbed in the Agriculture Department. It is safe to presume that the appellant got himself absorbed by using his influence in the Chief Minister' s Secretariat as is evidenced in the written statement filed by the respondent 1. It reveals that the appellant first tried for his absorption as Deputy Secretary but his request was rejected by the then Chief Minister. He then manipulated a letter from the Secretary to the Chief Minister proposing his adjustment as Director SASO/SSC in Agriculture Department. The absorption, in other words, was made on consideration other than merit or even legal propriety.
6. On 16-6-1999, with a change in the political situation, the Agriculture Department understandably moved for its rescission. Being contrary to the rules and the principles of good governance, the D absorption was a nullity in the eye of law and could have no legal effect. Any right accrued by a void order is no less illegal and the competent , authority can, at any time, undo it. The facts. Of the cases IE discussed in the case laws produced by the counsel for the appellant are different in material particulars and so bear no relevance to the instant case.
7. In view of the above, there is no substance in the appeal and the same is rejected.