' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J--- These petitions have been directed against the judgment dated 11-12-2004 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal whereby the appeals of the respondents against their dismissal from service were allowed on the short ground that after promulgation of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, the proceedings against them under Pakistan Cantonment Service Rules, 1954 were not legal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that notwithstanding the promulgation of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, the operation of P.S.C. Rules 1954, would continue and the action taken against the respondents under the said rules, would be quite in accordance with law.
3. Section 11 of the Sindh Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 is read as under:- -- "The provisions of this Ordinance shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the rules made thereunder and any other law for time being in force."
' This Court in C.P.L.A. No,220-K of 2005 "Azizullah Memon v. Province of Sindh and another" vide order dated 31-8-2005, held as under:--- "In presence of express and specific language employed in the Ordinance neither the departmental authorities nor the Tribunal bothered to notice that after the date of promulgation of the Ordinance all disciplinary proceedings should have been initiated under the Ordinance rather than the old Rules enforced in 1973. This Court has already ruled in a number of judgments that this Ordinance has the over-riding effect over all other laws on the subject except in case proceedings, which were already pending before the promulgation of the Ordinance."
' The provisions of section 11 (supra), having overriding effect, would make the proceedings under the rules in question ineffective and we without taking any exception to the judgment of the Tribunal, dismiss these petitions in the light of the judgment of this Court in C.P. No,220-K of 2005 referred above. However, the petitioners having the bona tide impression that the order passed under the rules in question was legal, instead of holding a de novo inquiry in terms of judgment of the Tribunal, preferred to file these petitions before this Court, therefore, they would be still entitled to avail the time given by the Tribunal for de novo inquiry. These petitions having no substance, are dismissed. Leave is refused.