PROVINCE OF SIND THROUGH SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND HEALTH
The respondent, a temporary employee at Chandika Medical College, Larkana, had his services terminated following allegations of misconduct involving the harboring of students during campus disturbances. The respondent challenged this termination before the Sind Service Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the grounds that the respondent had not been afforded an opportunity to show cause against the termination, despite a dissenting opinion regarding the limitation period. The petitioner, the Province of Sind, sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, primarily arguing that the respondent's appeal before the Tribunal was time-barred. The Supreme Court observed that the issue of limitation had not been pressed before the Service Tribunal and was therefore deemed abandoned. Finding that substantial justice had been done between the parties, the Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's decision. The key principle established is that a party cannot raise a plea of limitation for the first time in a petition for special leave to appeal if that point was not pressed or was abandoned before the lower forum.
- Can a party raise a plea of limitation for the first time in a petition for special leave to appeal if it was not pressed before the lower tribunal?
- Is a service tribunal's decision to reinstate an employee due to the lack of a show-cause notice subject to interference if substantial justice has been done?
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 This appeal was withdrawn on the ground of being defective for non-joinder of parties and another appeal was filed on 13-7-76 which was numbered as Appeal No. 71 of 1976.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.