' NUR AHMAD SHAH (MEMBER-II).---This is an appeal under section 4 Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
' The facts are: Appellant Abdul Karim Taggar was a Police Constable posted at Police Station Mithiani, District Naushahro Feroze when a complaint was lodged with Police station about a theft in a shop on 10-2-1997. There was no mention of any suspect much less accused in the F.1.R., The police, however, challaned the appellant in that case. The Court found him not guilty. He was, accordingly, acquitted on 16-12-1997. Meanwhile, the appellant was placed under suspension, charge-sheeted for facing the criminal charge and dismissed from service on 4-6-1997. His efforts to challenge his dismissal before his superiors bore no fruit. Hence this appeal.
2. Heard Mr. Ansari Abdul Latif, advocate for the appellant and the A.A.-G. Chaudhary Muhammad Iqbal for the Government. The counsel for the appellant argues that no proper inquiry was held by the department before imposing the penalty of dismissal on the appellant and that the only ground for dismissal was a criminal charge of which the appellant was acquitted by the competent forum. He pleads for setting aside the impugned order. He relies on 1998 P.L.C.(C.S.)
1430 in which the Supreme Court held that a civil servant involved in a criminal case would, on acquittal, be considered to have committed no offence and would be entitled to grant of arrears of his pay and allowances in respect of the period he remained under suspension because of his facing the criminal charge. The Assistant Advocate General, Chaudhary Muhammad Iqbal contends that the appellant confessed his guilt before the police and that police recovered the stolen property from him and so, according to him, there was no need for further enquiry and the appellant was rightly dismissed from service.
3. In Para 7 of his written statement the Respondent No,1, 'District Police Officer, Naushehro Feroze, admits that "No DP (Disciplinary proceeding) was initiated against the appellant, as the appellant was involved/challaned in criminal case which was sufficient for his dismissal from service.... "The respondent further states that the appellant was dismissed from service on 4-6-1997 prior to the announcement of the judgment".
4. The department should have initiated disciplinary action against the appellant tor his misdemeanour or misconduct independently of the criminal prosecution. Or they should have awaited at least the out-come of the case if it was to be made the sole ground for a disciplinary action against the appellant. The appellant having been exonerated from the accusation the ground of his dismissal from service cannot be sustained.
5. The appellant was dismissed from service on 25-3-1998. Against this he went in appeal before the I.G. Police who rejected the appeal on 14-4-1999. The appellant should have approached the Tribunal within 30 days thereafter. Instead, the instant appeal was filed on 30-3-2001. The appeal, is, thus, apparently time-barred. The appellant has requested for condonation in delay on the plea that after his appeal was rejected by the I.G. Police he went to him (I.G.) in review petition and kept on pursuing it. Thus, the delay, he contends, is not wilful. The impugned order, as we have seen earlier, is void ab-initio. It would not gain validity with lapse of time. It is a settled law that there is no limitation against an illegal order.
5-A. We allow the appeal, set aside the appellant's dismissal from service and held him entitled to all benefits.