Engineer MAJEED AHMED MEMON vs LIAQUAT UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES, JAMSHORO and others
This petition arises from an order of the High Court of Sindh concerning the termination of the petitioner's services while he was employed as a probationer at the Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences. The petitioner was issued a show-cause notice alleging misconduct under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. Despite submitting a reply, the university terminated his services without conducting a formal inquiry or providing a personal hearing. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a probationer facing specific allegations of misconduct, such as corruption or irregularity, can be summarily removed from service without a proper inquiry. The Supreme Court, noting that the petitioner's contention regarding the necessity of an inquiry was supported by the precedent established in Muhammad Siddiq Javaid Chaudhry v. The Government of West Pakistan (PLD 1974 SC 393), found merit in the arguments presented. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to further examine the procedural requirements for terminating a probationer under the prevailing legal framework, emphasizing the necessity of due process even for probationary employees facing disciplinary charges.
- Can a probationer facing specific allegations of misconduct be removed from service without a formal inquiry?
- Is a personal hearing mandatory before terminating a probationer accused of misconduct under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000?
- Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000
ORDER
' SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.---This Petition is directed against the order dated 13-11-2008 passed by Honourable High Court of Sindh in C.P.No,D-1202 of 2008.
2. The petitioner though working as a probationer in the respondents university was served with a show-cause notice containing allegations of misconduct under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. He submitted a reply to the notice but admittedly neither an inquiry was held nor was a personal hearing accorded to him. On 7-11-2007 an order terminating the petitioner's services on the basis of charges leveled was passed.
3. Mr. Ansari Abdul Lateef, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that even while being a probationer since there were definite allegations of corruption or irregularity he could not be removed without a proper inquiry. Reliance is placed on the pronouncement of this Court in the case of Muhammad Siddiq Javaid Chaudhry v. The Government of West Pakistan reported in PLD 1974 SC 393 which prima facie supports his point of view, Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted.
Appeal may be ready within three weeks and be listed for hearing whenever a Bench of three Honorable Judges is available thereafter. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.