MEHRAN UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY JAMSHORO through Vice-Chancellor and another vs Dr. MUHAMMAD MOAZAM BALOCH and another

' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- Petitioner-University seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred as the Tribunal) disposing of respondent No, l's appeal against his dismissal from service on the ground of his continuous absence from duly.

2006. Respondent was employed as Assistant Professor in the petitioner-University. After seeking higher education abroad, respondent returned back and for personal reasons was unable to continue his duties, therefore, he submitted his resignation for acceptance by the petitioner- University. University Authorities, however, instead of accepting or rejecting the same, proceeded to issue show-cause notice to the respondent for his long absence and passed an order of dismissal from service. Copy of the dismissal order, though reflected in the pleadings, has not been placed on record. Respondent submitted departmental appeal terming it as review petition against dismissal order, which was rejected by the University authorities on the sole ground that the same was not maintainable and the respondent should have preferred an appeal to the Chancellor of the University.

3. Learned Tribunal, after scrutiny of the material on record, was of the opinion that if the review petition filed by the respondent was not maintainable before the University authorities, only appropriate course left open to them was to forward the same to the Chancellor of the University for necessary orders. After discussing stance of the respondent at length, the Tribunal has directed the University authorities to forward the said petition of the respondent to the Chancellor/Governor Sindh within a fortnight for passing appropriate order. It is as against this order that the petitioners feel aggrieved and seek leave to appeal.

4. Mr. Abdul Rahim Kazi, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners made two-fold submissions; firstly, that the review petition filed by the respondent and consequently service appeal before the Tribunal were barred by time. Furthermore, respondent's review petition itself was not competent before the Vice-Chancellor, which, however, was placed before the Syndicate but not accepted.

5. Adverting to the question of limitation, it may suffice to observe that in the impugned judgment the Tribunal has dealt with this question at length and for valid and elaborate reasons, found that it was a fit case for entertaining appeal because the respondent had been running from pillar to post for the redress of his grievance. In the opinion of the Tribunal, service appeal filed by him was well within time; thus, there B was no occasion for condonation of delay. We do not find any fault with this conclusion of fact and the exercise of discretion on the part of the Tribunal, which does not suffer from any inherent defect, misconception of law or error of jurisdiction.

6. As to the second submission that the review petition was not competent, we endorse the view of the Tribunal that even if that be so, it was incumbent on the part of the Vice-Chancellor of the University to treat it as departmental appeal and to forward it to the Chancellor rather than to place it before the Syndicate or to sit in judgment over his own action by chairing the meeting of the Syndicate. Order passed by the Tribunal, on the face of the record, appears to be just, fair and equitable, which does not warrant any interference by this Court.

' For the aforesaid facts and reasons, this petition is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed.

Leave to appeal is declined.