1. ' ABDUL RASHEED MEMON (MEMBER-II).---The appellants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of their termination passed by respondentNo,3 from the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector Police and failure of the respondent No,2 to decide the departmental appeal within the prescribed time they approached the Tribunal for calling the record and proceedings from the respondents so as to examine the legality and propriety of the said impugned orders to reinstate the appellants with all benefits on consideration of the facts as detailed below.
2. ' The appellants in pursuance of the advertisement for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police applied against the same poste and received letter, dated 4-10-1995 for appearance before the Central Selection Board on 10-10-1995 at 10-00 a.m. The office of Superintendent of Police S.R.F., Sukkur alongwith testimonials and certificates of the appellants. Consequently the appellants appeared before the Selection Board and as a result of the said interview the appellants were declared successful and were offered the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police vide appointment letter, dated 19-12-1995. In pursuance of the said letters they sent intimation to the appointing authority and after observing all the legal formalities and medical check-up were appointed on 31- 12-1995 and their services were placed at the disposal of S.S.P., Sukkur. Thereafter, they were sent on training to Police Training College, Shandadpur which they attended for a period of 15 months and successfully completed the same without any complaint. They completed all the Police Courses i,e, A, B and C, for about 6 months and such certificates were issued to them. After completion of this training they were posted Assistant Sub-Inspector Police on 13-12-1997. However, without any valid reasons notice of termination dated 27-3-1998 was issued whereby baseless allegations were levelled against them. The appellants replied to the said show-cause notice and denied the allegations. However, respondent No,3 without applying his independent mind and perusal of the record available in his office passed an order, dated 13-6-1998, according to which the appellant's services were terminated mainly on the so-called grounds that the principles as laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in judgment of Human Rights' Case No,104 of 1992, dated 6-3-1993 were not observed. In fact, the judgment referred to above in the termination order is neither applicable nor has any bearing in the case of the appellant at all. Thus respondent No,3 has acted under express and implicit directions of the respondent No,1 communicated by mans of letter dated 21-3- 1998 who desired the authorities to issue show-cause notice with regard to the termination of the appellants alongwith others. This galaring exercise by the respondent No,1 is against all canons of law and principles of natural justice. The termination order passed by the respondent is colourable, mala fide, without jurisdiction and without power against law and principles of natural justice. The appellants on receipt of termination order had filed departmental appeal dated 27-6-1998 which had been rejected vide order, dated 1-9-1998. Thus, they challenged the termination before the Tribunal and requested that the impugned order was not sustainable in law, is illegal, without lawful authority and principles of natural justice. Hence their reinstatement may be ordered with all benefits. The respondents in their written reply contested the claim of the appellants and have stated that the Centrals Selection Board for selection of Assistant Sub-Inspector was constituted by the Inspector-General Police headed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Larkana, Mr. Niaz Ahmed Siddiqui and the members of Board were Mr. Nadir Hussain Khoso and Mr. Sanaullah Abbasi, Senior Superintendents of Police. The appellants were not called by the Selection Board for viva voce, that was held on 10-10-1995 nor they had, gone through the physical test held on 27-10- 1995. The result of Board was not declared and in the meantime lists of persons affiliated with political persons were received without any forwarding letter for issuing them offers of appointments. The lists were captioned as PM List CM List Care of MNAs/MPAs. The offers of appointments were to be issued without observing the codal formalities as laid down in the rules.
3. The appellants who had applied for the post of Assistants Sub-Inspector in Khairpur District, issued offer letters on 19-12-1995 and were appointed after medical examination on 31-12-1995 without observing codal formalities. Subsequently vide- letter, dated 21-3-1998 of the I.-G. Police, Sindh received through D.I.-G. Sukkur, notices were issued for termination of services of all the political employees. They were also issued such a notice and heard in person on 11-6-1998. Their explanation was not found plausible and being appointed without observing codal formalities their services were terminated with effect from 11-6-1998. As their names were there in the list of political persons recommended for such appointments, hence this resulted in their termination. Thus it has been contested that no injustice has been done with the appellants due to their illegal appointment obtained through political favour hence their appeals were not liable to be considered.
4. ' The Advocate for the appellants while arguing the case pointed out that appellants had applied against the post advertised by the Department and were successful and rendered about 3 years' service at the time of termination of their services. That while issuing the show-cause notice or the termination the Competent Authority did not apply its mind but was compelled under orders of higher authorities to do so. There was no specific charge against them except that of a political favour. He said that the appointment of the appellants was on merit and had qualified their examination and cleared necessary training hence on the point of locus poenitentiae as per 1997 SCMR page 1515 which was attracted in the instant case and their services could not be terminated. Assistant Advocate-General, on the other hand, stated that the advertisement was issued on 1-10-1995 and last date was 23-10-1995. The appellants did not apply against the said post but their names were provided in the list (copy supplied for the record of Tribunal) whereupon without holding a meeting of the Selection Board of offers of the appointment were issued. The appellant Naveed Akbar was not qualified candidate nor had fulfilled the requirements for the said part. He was under age of 2 months at the time of his appointment, was Intermediate in 'D' Grade as against 'C' Grade. Thus their appointments were in clear violation as no lists were published by the Selection Board. Even there were no applications of the appellants in response to the said advertisement on the record as they themselves have chosen not to furnish the copy of said application. Besides, according to the, terms and conditions of the offer letter as supported in advertisement the probationary period was of 3 years. The appellants were appointed on 19-12- 1995 had to complete the said period on 18-12-1998 but their services were terminated vide order, dated 13-6-1998. Thus the order issued were lawful and according to law. Besides under the appointments (E&D) Rules misconduct means prejudice conduct and use of political influence for getting appointment and transfer etc. Beside one was not a qualified candidate, hence no right is accrued to the appellants as their appointments remained void throughout the period they were in service as laid down in the following decisions:-
(a) _ 1998 PLC (C.S.) 921;
(b) 1999 SCMR 2883;
(c) NLR 1999 TD (Service) 55;
(d) PLD 1997'SC 357;
(e) 1982 SCMR 770;
(f) 1993 SCMR 1287 and
(g) NLR 1995 TD (Service) 256.
5. ' From the foregoing facts as brought on the record by the Advocate of the appellants as well as A.A.-G., it has emerged beyond any shadow of doubt that the appellants at the time of advertisement and even the election of appellant Naveed Akbar as Assistant Sub-Inspector who was not a qualified person being Intermediate in 'D' Grade as against requirement of 'C' Grade and was under age by 2 months, and these facts have not been controverted by the Advocate of the appellant hence the fact that the appointment was purely on political influence becomes amply clear, because, in the normal circumstances are being unqualified could not be considered for selection. Absence of the applications by both the candidates for the post of Assistant Sub- Inspector purported to have been submitted by the appellant have been deliberately not been brought on record as the fact about their age, qualification, etc., would have become apparent and its deficiencies visible.
6. ' Thus we hold that the appointment of the appellants was ab initio void, illegal and due to political consideration and was rightly hit by the Human Rights' Case decided by the Supreme Court and hence we come to the conclusion that the action of termination of the service of the appellants was valid and made under the Rules. We find no ground to interfere with the said order of their termination. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.