1. Mrs. Yasmin Abbasey, J.--With the allegation that without affording an opportunity of hearing and issuance of show causes notice. Petitioner was removed from service on the charge of misconduct, redress of grievance for sought from this Court.
2. Referring to the case of Executive Engineer, Qadirabad, Barrage, Division, Qadirabad and others vs. Ejaz Ahmad (2007 SCM R 1860), it is argued that the non-issuance of show cause notice has been observed flagrant violation of the provisions of Ordinance, 2000 and also in against to the well recognized principle of natural justice and is sufficient to vitiate the entire proceedings.
3. During course of arguments it, is proposed by learned counsel for petitioner that with the direction to issue show cause notice and to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner case be remanded to the respondent authority for fresh decision.
4. Whereas learned counsel for the respondents challenging the maintainability of the petition argued that petition in against to a Federal Governing Body through Ministry of Defence, therefore, without impleading Federation or the Provincial Government as party petition is not maintainable.
5. Further that in the light of observation made in the case of Muhammad Idrees vs. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and others (PLD 2007 SC 681) the cases in which the services of employee are governed by statutory rules are not hit by Mubin-us-Salam's case and the Service Tribunal has jurisdiction in those matter, and thus present petition is not maintainable.
6. Whereas, according to learned counsel for petitioner, as the respondents did not have the statutory rules, therefore, observations made in case of Muhammad Idrees vs. Agricultural Development Bank Of Pakistan and others (Supra) will not apply in the present case. But the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of termination order issued on 16.02.2006 under para-3 clause 1 (b) of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance, 2000 is sufficient to observed that the petitioner's case is governed by this Ordinance of 2000 and thus in view of above referred judgment of Hon'bie Supreme Court with an addition to the observations made in the case of Anwar Parvez vs. Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Abbottabad and 2 others (2005 SCM R 1063), which is almost of the same nature had observed, with reference to the compulsory retirement from service under NWFP Removal from Service (Special Powers), Ordinance, 2000, that: "This law being the latest special law has provided a forum of appeal to anyone, who is proceeded against this Ordinance of 2000. Hence we hold that the appeal was competent before the Tribunal, which was wrongly dismissed. Consequently, the petitioner after conversion into appeal is accepted and the case is remanded to the NWFP Service Tribunal for decision on merits."
7. Next that before dismissing him from service, enquiry was conducted and petitioner was given an opportunity to plead his case and it is on his admission of keeping the DHA Montessori amount with him, his service was terminated.
8. The fact of conducting enquiry proceedings has been admitted by the petitioner in his appeal to Defence Secretary and chairman Governing Body, DHA, Karachi made on 13.04.2007. That further find support from the non-denial of respondent's statement in his parawise comments about the participation of petitioner in enquiry proceedings. After this admission, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of Section 3(2) of 'Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh, Ordinance, 2000' he was not informed by the competent authority for the action to be proposed in against to him and no opportunity of hearing was provided to him has no weight as proper opportunity to defend his case was given to petitioner, if that ended in against to him, does not mean that petitioner was not heard. In view of the foregoing reasons we are of the view that the petitioner was terminated from service after due enquiry, which is apparent from the documents placed by him and the statement made by the respondents in their parawise comments as to the holding of enquiry against the petitioner.
9. With the above reasoning petition stands dismissed alongwith the listed application. The petitioner may approach to the Service Tribunal for redress of his grievance, if so advised.