The respondent was working as a Manager and General Manager (Ship Repairs) in the employment of the appellant company. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 21st October, 1978. It is not necessary to go into the other details of the case, however, it would suffice to state that before any final decision could be taken against him, he filed a suit being Suit No. 3427 of 1978 in the Court of Vth Senior Civil Judge at Karachi, seeking declaration and injunction against the appellants. The learned trial Court, by an order dated 6th March, 1979 passed on the application filed by applicants/defendants under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. Rejected the plaint.
An Appeal No. 77 of 1979 was filed, which was heard by the learned IVth Additional District Judge, Karachi, who by the order dated 22nd April, 1979 held that the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff to the extent it claimed relief of permanent/mandatory injunction was hit and barred under section 21 of the Specific Relief Act and thus no injunction could be granted under the law. With the above observation while setting aside the order of the trial Court the suit was remanded to the trial Court for its disposal according to law.
2. Against the above order this petition was filed in this Court.
3. A significant event took place in the meantime, i.e. On 22nd April, 1979 by an order passed by the appellant company the respondent was dismissed from service. The respondent aggrieved by the order filed Constitutional Petition No. 500 of 1981 under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981.
4. In the light of the above event taking place subsequent to the fil--ing of the suit which resulted in the dismissal of the respondent on 22nd April, 1979 the suit earlier filed by the respondent challenging the charge--sheet and the proceedings taken against him prior to passing of the order of his dismissal from service obviously became infructuous. Even assum--ing for the sake of arguments it is found that the said proceedings leading A to service of charge-sheet and inquiry against the respondent for an reason are said to be suffering from any illegality or impropriety that would not affect the order of dismissal of the respondent from the service, which order was passed independent of the said proceeding. On this account alone no relief could be granted, and this Court is not expected! To undertake mere academic discussions. The suit is thus liable to be dis4 missed as having become infructuous.
Mr. Azhar Ali Siddiqui, the learned counsel for the respondent, how--ever, states that the Constitutional Petition No. 501 of 1981 filed by the respondent against the order of dismissal dated 22nd April, 1979 is still pending and that in case the respondent succeeds and the order of his dis-- missal is quashed, there is likelihood that the charge-sheet and the en--quiry which is subject- matter of Suit No. 3427 of 1978 may be revived against the respondent. This objection though on the face of it appears to be substantial, can hardly be entertained as it is based on hypothetical premises. However, in order to remove any doubt, in my opinion, it will meet the ends of justice if it is clarified that the respondent, in case any fresh enquiry is started against him on the success of Constitutional Petition No. 501 of 1981 or the original charge-sheet and inquiry are sought to be acted upon or revived thereafter would be at liberty to re--agitate the matter and file a fresh suit.
The respondent is satisfied with the above observations and I accor--dingly, with the above directions and observations, dispose of this re--vision application. The suit stands disposed of as having become infruc--tuous at this stage.