The applicant in his application u/s 25-A has challenged the order dated 3-9-1988 of the opponent whereby his appointment order dated 14-9-1987 was cancelled thus terminating his service.
2. The applicant has claimed to be a permanent workman having been appointed as Greaser in the year 1970 and subsequently promoted as Operator in he year 1976. In 1983 on account of general retrenchment of the workers the service of the applicant was also dispensed with. The applicant was again appointed as Operator by the opponent vide order dated 14-5-1987 in pursuance of the policy/Standing Instruction issued by the Government of Sindh vide Annexure A/5 but latter on by the order Exh. A/1 the applicant's appointment was cancelled or the grounds that he had failed to produce the documents and had tampered with his age determinated by the Civil Surgeon.
3. In reply statement the opponent has pleaded that the applicant was appointed as an Operator under the Sindh Service Rules and he was required to produce certain documents but he failed to do so as a result of which his appointment order was cancelled.
4. The applicant examined himself in support of his assertions while Mr. Ali Akbar was examined on behalf of the opponent. I have heard Mr. Bashir Awan learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Rafiq Ahmad learned A.-G.P. for the opponent.
5. Mr. Awan submitted that the applicant was relieved from his duties under the impugned order wherein serious allegation of tampering with the age certificate Exh. A/7 has been levelled against the applicant hence it was mandatory for the applicant to issue show cause notice and hold enquiry before terminating the service of applicant but admittedly none of these formalities was observed. According to Mr. Awan, therefore, on this score alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The next submission of Mr. Awan was that since the applicant was retrenched employee of the same department he was to be appointed in terms of policy of Government of Sindh as per letter produced as Exh. A/5 and in so doing the age of the applicant was not to be considered as it automatically stood relaxed by virtue of notification dated 7-11-1982. He further submitted that there is no age limit prescribed in the appointment order of the applicant and therefore the applicant's service cannot be terminated even if he is over age in view of the authority reported in 1989 PLC Lah. at page 525.
6. With regard to the objection of the opponent that the applicant is a civil servant within the meaning of Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 Mr. Awan has referred to me the definition of civil servant as given in the Act and contended that by virtue of section 2(1) (a) (III) of the above Act the applicant stands excluded from the definition of civil servant as he is workman under the Factories Act and Workmen's Compensation Act.
7. The learned A.-G.P. contended that the applicant was repeatedly asked to produce certain documents listed in his appointment order but he failed to produce the same. He added that the applicant also tampered with his age figure given in the Medical Certificate. The learned A.-G.P. also emphasized that the applicant was appointed under the provisions of Civil Servants Act and therefore he cannot maintain his application before this Court.
8. In reply Mr. Awan contended that the letters for producing the documents alleged to have been issued to the applicant have not been proved to have been served upon the applicant.
9. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the service of the applicant was terminated on serious allegation of misconduct also and therefore the applicant was entitled to defence for which proper enquiry should have been conducted after serving the applicant with show cause notice and giving him proper opportunity of rebutting the allegation. The opponent admittedly did not follow the settled procedure and as such the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain in law. I would therefore set aside the impugned order and direct the opponent to reinstate the applicant in service within 7 days. However, the opponent is at liberty to initiate the proceedings against the applicant if so desired and as warranted by law. The question of back benefits will depend upon the result of the enquiry if held.