1. ' By this Constitution petition the petitioner seeks to challenge his dismissal as District Agriculture Supplies Officer, Jacobabad, in the Sindh Agricultural Supplies Organisation.
2. ' Mr. Mazar Alam, the learned counsel for the petitioner' s main contention was that the petitioner's dismissal from service was in violation of the principle of natural justice, inasmuch as neither he was called to participate in any enquiry nor any enquiry report was provided to him nor was he given opportunity of hearing and explaining his position before the passing of the impugned order.
3. In support of his contentions the counsel relies on the case of Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. P.I.A.C. And another (1994 SCM R 2232). Order of petitioner' s dismissal was also attached on the ground that it was not passed by a competent Authority and that it was in contravention of the Civil Servant (E & D) Rules, 1973. In respect of his last two grounds, however,' the counsel was unable to point out any provision of law, rules or regulations to show that the person passing the impugned order had no authority to do so or that the dismissal was violative of any rule or regulation.
4. ' In the comments filed by the Managing Director, Sindh Agricultural Supplies Organisation the respondent No, 2, it has been denied that the enquiry was held at the back of the petitioner or that he had not participated in the enquiry or that he had not been given opportunity of hearing and explaining his position. It is 'asserted that an Enquiry Board was constituted which held the enquiry in which the petitioner participated. It is stated that the petitioner was first given a show-cause notice and later the final show-cause notice copies of these show-cause notices and petitioner' s replies thereto have been filed as annexures to the comments. From para. 11 of petitioner' s reply first show-cause notice it is apparent that the enquiry report was available with the petitioner and therefore the contention that enquiry report had not been supplied to him does not appear to be correct. It is also claimed by the respondent No,2 that before the impugned order of dismissal the petitioner was given personal hearing. From these allegations and counter-allegations it is obvious that disputed questions of facts are involved which cannot possibly be determined in this petition.
5. ' The Supreme Court's case, referred to by the petitioner's counsel, does not help him. There the appellant had been reverted from a higher grade to lower without being heard. This admitted position in that case was that neither any show-cause notice was issued to the appellant nor was she heard before the impugned order was passed. In the present case, however, as seen above, the position is quite different.
6. ' Another reason why this petition must fail is that, admittedly, by virtue of the Sindh Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1994 the provisions of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973 have been extended inter alia to the employees of respondent No, 1 Corporation, and therefore for the redress of his grievance the petitioner has to approach the Service Tribunal. Section 3-F, added to the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973 by the 1994 Amending Act, provides for abatement of all suits, appeals and applications relating to the terms of service of a person covered by the Act, pending in any Court immediately before the commencement of the 1994 Amending Act. However, it allows to the affected persons ninety days' time, from the commencement of the Amending Act, for preferring appeal to the Tribunal.
7. ' For the reasons discussed above we find no merit in the petition. Before parting with the petition, however, we may observe that in the present case the period of ninety days prescribed for appeal to the Service Tribunal seems to have already expired, but if the petitioner now prefers appeal to the Tribunal, we hope that, having regard to the fact that this petition could not be disposed of earlier, the Tribunal would consider condoning the delay in filing appeal, occasioned due to the pendency of the petition.
8. ' We had dismissed this petition in limine by short order on 9-10-1995 and the above are the reasons therefor.