THE PROVINCE OF SINDH THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF SINDH vs RAJ KUMAR LOHANA

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

THE PROVINCE OF SINDH THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF SINDH VS RAJ KUMAR LOHANA. Rr. 12.2(3) & 12.24---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.10-A---Police service---Withdrawal of initial appointment---Reinstatement/re-appointment---Dispute qua fixation of inter-se seniority of Assistant Sub-Inspectors---Order of reckoning of seniority from the date of initial appointment subsequently withdrawn by the authority without issuing show cause notice---Principle of natural justice---Fair trial, violation of. Service appeals of the ASIs qua claim of reckoning of seniority from the date of initial appointment were allowed by the Sindh Service Tribunal (SST). Validity. As per R.12.2(3) of the Police Rules, 1934 (Rules) the seniority in the case of upper subordinates is reckoned in the first instance from the date of first appointment; officers promoted from a lower rank are considered senior to persons appointed direct on the same date and the seniority of officers appointed direct on the same date is reckoned according to age, however, the seniority is finally settled by dates of confirmation, whereas the inter se seniority of several officers confirmed on the same date being that allotted to them on first appointment. While the seniority of lower subordinates is reckoned from dates of appointment, subject to the conditions of R.12.24 of the Rules and provided that a promoted officer shall rank senior to an officer appointed direct to the same rank on the same date. While determining the issue of seniority, predominance should have been given to the statutory provisions that are in vogue including the provisions set out for the alleviation of grievances vis-à-vis the determination of seniority. Expression "seniority", in the labour and service laws, exemplifies the precedence or preference in the standing of an employee over other similarly placed employees with the philosophy that if service of an employee is lengthier or on top of one another employee, then he is designated senior to the other. Since seniority bequeaths a valuable right and the whole future career and prospects of an employee time and again hinge on such seniority, therefore, its determination must be in accordance with relevant laws and rules. If the seniority list is to be revised, revisited or upset come what may, it is an onerous obligation of the competent authority/concerned department to confront the issue to all persons who are likely to be affected and deprived of their seniority but without following due process, it is sheer contravention of Article 10-A of the Constitution. Principles of natural justice requires that the delinquent should be afforded a fair opportunity to converge, explain, and contest the allegation against him before he is found guilty, condemned or any adversarial action is taken. All judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authorities should carry out their powers with a judicious and evenhanded approach to ensure justice according to the tenor of law and without any violation of the principles of natural justice. Predominant purpose of a show cause notice is to seek out a response explicating why a disciplinary or departmental action should not be taken. If any action is taken without due process of law or in violation of natural justice/fair trial, then the whole/entire infrastructure built thereupon deserves demolition and desolation. Issue before Supreme Court was not in a straight line correlated to the mere seniority and probation at the time of appointment or direct appointment of Inspectors, Sub-Inspectors and Asst. Sub-Inspectors but the case squarely was germane to the fixation of the seniority on the occasion of reinstatement and not on the basis of fresh appointment. Notification/Order was issued by the I.G.P. Sindh with the concurrence of the Chief Minister Sindh, factum of which was neither denied nor was any logical or sound justification placed before Supreme Court as to why in the case of reinstatement, the original seniority should not be reckoned and restored. No justification was found to interfere in the judgment of SST, thus, the Civil Appeals filed by the Government were dismissed, in circumstances.

THE PROVINCE OF SINDH THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF SINDH vs RAJ KUMAR LOHANA — 2026 SCMR 278 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 SCMR