Granted.
2. This is an application through which it is prayed that order dated 22-11-2011 be suspended.
When this petition came up for Katcha Peshi on 15-11-2011 learned counsel was specifically asked to satisfy as to how this petition was maintainable. The petitioner was working as Tapedar. Show- cause notice dated 28-10-2011 was issued to the petitioner on 28-10-2011 and on the same day, vide a separate order, he was placed under suspension. Subsequently final show-cause notice dated 5-11-2011 was issued to him and this petition was filed for declaration that suspension order and the show-cause notice are illegal unconstitutional and against natural justice. Relief of suspension was also prayed. During pendency of the petition, order dated 22-11-2011 was passed by Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur and major penalty of dismissal from service under the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 was imposed upon the petitioner.
'Learned counsel was directed to satisfy as to how this petition was maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner is a civil servant, action has been taken under the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules. 1973 and jurisdiction of this Court is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution. Learned counsel referred to Abdul Jabbar v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad and two others' 2009 PLC (C.S.) 338. This is a case of a Deputy Manager in a State owned organization who, admittedly, was not a civil servant. It is, therefore clearly distinguishable. Learned counsel next relied upon the case of Niaz Ali v. Executive Engineer and two others 2011 PLC (C.S.)
61. The question of maintainability of the petition qua Article 212 of the Constitution was not raised, considered or decided in the reported. Third case was that of Tariq Mehmood v. Government of Punjab 2011 PLC (C.S.) 1120. Again in the reported case, question of maintainability of petition was neither raised nor considered or decided.
The petitioner has been dismissed from service and the petitioner is a civil servant. Whether the dismissal order has been passed in accordance with law or not is something which only Service Tribunal can decide. Learned counsel submitted that order is a mala fide order. It may be so. The Supreme Court, in the case of I.A. Sherwani v. Government of Pakistan 1991 SCMR 1041, held that even if mala fide or violation of fundamental rights in respect of terms and conditions of employment is pleaded, jurisdiction lies with the Service Tribunal.
Result of the above discussion is that this petition is dismissed in limine. Pending application are disposed of.