KHALID AKRAM vs PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary art — 2025 PLC(CS) 1231 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

KHALID AKRAM VS PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary art. 199---Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, R. 4(1)(b)(iii)---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Principle of laches---applicability---Reinstatement in service sought---Petitioners assailed order of their removal from service after the lapse of ten years without explaining any convincing reasons for the inordinate delay---Principle of laches was applicable to the case of the petitioners---allegedly, the appeals of petitioners were decided on 15.04.2021 and petition was filed on 21.06.2021, which was within time---Petitioners hereby prayed to set aside the order dated 06.12.2000 as set out in the prayer clause---Petitioners after the lapse of 10 years filed the constitution petition which was disposed of without granting any relief except to direct the Department to decide the appeals of petitioners, if any---Department complied with court orders, and decided the appeals of the petitioners---Decision in appeals did not give a fresh cause to the petitioners, in fact the cause had arisen in the year 2000 and non-deciding of departmental appeals did not in any manner debar the petitioners from filing of Service appeal---Petitioners filed instant petition in the year 2021 seeking reversal of an order passed by the competent authority in the year 2000---Petitioners slept over their rights and were guilty of inaction, laxity, contumacious lethargy and gross negligence---Instant petition was hit by laches, a principle under the law which necessitated to initiate the legal proceedings promptly---Petition was dismissed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 PLC(CS) 1231 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case KHALID AKRAM VS PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary R. 4(1)(b)(iii)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 212 & 199---Removal from service---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Petitioners were appointed as low grade employees on contingent basis---Services of petitioners were regularized on 13.10.1995 by the Committee with the approval of Chief Minister, Sindh---Petitioners performed their duties in Labour Welfare Department, Government of Sindh until September, 2000, when a show-cause notice was served upon them under sub-rule (3) of R. 5 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, calling in question the genuineness of their appointments---Petitioners submitted replies to show-cause notice on 28.09.2000---Competent Authority was not satisfied with the reply of the Show-Cause notice and imposed major penalty of removal from service---Validity---In the appointment orders dated 6th December 1995 of the petitioners, it was found that clause (iii) of the appointment orders contained a condition that the services of the employee/appointee shall be governed by the Sindh Government Service Rules, meaning thereby that the services of the petitioners were being governed by the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, and rules framed thereunder---Competent Authority initiated inquiry and imposed major penalty of removal from service under R. 4 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973---Petitioners were appointed and removed from services under the provisions of Rules framed under Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973---Final action relating to the terms and conditions of services including but not limited to removal from service fell within the terms and conditions of the service, thus, was amenable to the jurisdiction of the competent judicial forum created to adjudicate service matters---Petitioners did not file any departmental appeal before the competent authority and service appeal before the Services Tribunal, thus the orders passed by the competent authority attained finality---Remedy against the orders of the competent authority impugned in the instant petition laid before the Services Tribunal---Petitioners had the remedy under the law to file a Service Appeal before services tribunal, but they did not---Petition was not maintainable being barred under Art. 212 of the Constitution---Petition was dismissed, accordingly.

KHALID AKRAM vs PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary art — 2025 PLC(CS) 1231 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLC