HUSSAIN ALI CHANDIO vs THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD And Other

ORDER

ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.-- The petitioner was appointed as Deputy Manager Personnel by the Board of Trustees, Karachi Port Trust, on 28-5-1977. Subsequently the petitioner's appointment was approved by the Government of Pakistan on 10-6-1977. He was thereafter confirmed on successfully completing the probationary period and was also granted increment in his salary on 18-2-1979. However, the petitioner, was removed from service by the Secretary, Ministry of Communications, Government of Pakistan in exercise of powers under the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978 vide letter, dated 28-1-1979 published in the Gazette of Pakistan on 19-3-1978. He filed a representation which was dismissed and according to the petitioner was communicated to him on 3-5-1981. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which has been dismissed by a judgment, dated 17-11-1983.

2. The office has raised an objection that the present petition is barred by- 9 days However, the learned counsel submits that as would appear from the copy of the letter issued by the Assistant Registrar of the Service Tribunal, dated 23-11-1983 enclosing the copy of the judgment, it was receiving by the petition on 4-12-1983, and hence the petition having been presented in this Court on 1-2-1984 is within the. The submission of the learned counsel appears to be prima facie correct.

3. On the merits it has been urged by the learned counsel that the finding of the Service Tribunal that the appeal before it was barred by limitation proceeds on surmises and conjectures. In this connection it is argued that the letter, dated 24-5-1980 whereby the decision on the departmental petition of the petitioner is supposed to have been communicated to him was not in fact received by him, as also because no such statement was made before the High Court on behalf of the Karachi Port Trus, in a Writ Petition filed by the petitioner in regard to the disposal of his representation. It is next contended by the learned counsel that the removal of the petitioner from service is contrary to the provisions of Ordinance 1978 inasmuch as, no evidence was produced that the authority had applied his mind to the question whether the removal of the petitioner was in public interest or not. There is nothing in the impugned order of removal to that effect nor was any record produced before the Service Tribunal to indicate that this question was taken into consideration. The only reference to the record in the judgment of the Service Tribunal is in connection with the Minister of Communications having appointed the petitioner and waiving the condition of experience. The Service Tribunal, it is urged, took upon itself to furnish the grounds in support of the removal by observing that the post was not advertised and no selection procedure was adopted in accordance with the rules. It is forcefully contended that the law made no provisions for removal of incumbents on such grounds, much less on the ground that the appointment was political in nature but the competent authority had to be satisfied that the removal of the incumbent was in public interest.

4. The contentions advanced by the learned counsel raise legal questions of general importance.

We, therefore, allow this petition and grant leave to appeal, subject however, to all just exceptions as to limitation.