Pakistan Case Law← Search
1978 SCMR 203

PROVINCE OF SIND THROUGH SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND HEALTH

Citation1978 SCMR 203
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K f 143 of 1977
Date1978-03-17
Judge(s)Waheeduddin Ahmad, Muhammad Haleem
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The respondent eras appointed temporarily is Chowkidar in the Chandika Medical College, Larkana on 14-11-73. His service were later on, redesignated, and be was posted as a Peon in the laid College under Office Order dated 21-8-74 on the same terns and conditions of service. During the students disturbances In the College, it is alleged that he behaved against the discipline of the College and harboured student wanted by the authorities, and concealed him in the laboratory of Histology Department An enquiry was held against the respondent and he was found guilty of misconduct and thus it was thought undesirable to retain him in the College service. His services were: terminated by Order dated 12-12-75. The respondent challenged this cider in appeal before the Sind Service Tribunal on 20-5-76. This appeal was withdrawn on the ground of being defective for non-joinder of parties and another appeal was filed on 13-7-76 which was numbered as Appeal No. 71 of 1976.

2. On hearing the appeal it was allowed by the Chairman and one Member of the Sind Service Tribunal, Karachi on the ground that the respondent was not afforded an opportunity of show cause. Another member gave a dissent--ing judgment and decided the appeal on the question of limitation. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said Order.

3. Mr. Usman Ghani the learned counsel for the petitioner has not argued on the merits of the case but hue only urged that the appeal filed by respondent, was barred by time. From the impugned order, it appears that this point was not pressed before the Service Tribunal. In these circumstances we consider that the point of limitation ass abandoned before the learned Tribunal and we cannot allow it to be raised before us in this petition for special leave.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we are satisfied that the substantial justice lies been done between the parties. There is no ground to interfere. The petition is dismissed.

Cited by 1 case

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search