ORDER
SHEET
IN THE
HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
C. P. No. D – 1734 of 2018
|
Date of hearing |
Order with signature
of Judge |
1.
For orders on office objection
2.
For hearing of CMA No.8929/2018
3.
For hearing of main case
25.10.2018
Mr.
Aayatullah Khuwaja advocate
for petitioner.
Mr.
Jalil Ahmed Memon advocate along with respondent No.2
Syed Amir Ali Shah.
Mr.
Noor Hassan Malik Assistant Advocate General Sindh.
.................
We
have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. Today, Mr. Jalil
Ahmed Memon has filed vakalatnama
on behalf of respondent No.2 as well as comments without any document. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been relieved from
his duties which are neither transparent nor lawful. He was appointed by the
Local Government Department and was posted in terms of order dated 10.03.2012
in TMA, Bhiria District Naushahro
Feroze. On account of some misbehaviour
issues with the staff and his conduct with juniors, the Chairman Town Committee
was coerced to relieve him summarily from the Town Committee and has been
advised to report back to Local Government which is impugned in these
proceedings. Section 80 of the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013 enables a Mayor
and/or a Chairman, as the case may be, to exercise, supervise and control over
the acts and proceedings of all employees of the Committee and dispose of all
questions relating to their service, pay privileges and allowances in
accordance with the rules, provided that the service matters of the members of
Sindh Local Government Unified Grade shall be referred to Government.
Admittedly,
the petitioner was appointed as clerk and he was not a unified grade employee,
hence, in terms of Section 80 (c) it is the Mayor and/or Chairman to exercise
supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of the employees. The
impugned letter whereby he was relieved from services, is apparently within
their domain and the Council itself could investigate all proceedings of the
employees of the Town Committee Bhiria being not
Unified Grade employee. He was allegedly relieved on account of his misbehaviour with the staff and his conduct to the juniors but
he was condemned unheard. Though the para wise comments disclosed that a show-cause notice was issued but neither it was attached with the
comments nor the relieving letter said it so. Presumably, this action was taken
without issuing him a show-cause notice and perhaps without hearing the
petitioner. Without commenting as to whether the petitioner has misbehaved or has
conducted in a manner which is not justified in any manner, we deem it
appropriate and with the consensus of the counsel that he may be given a show-cause
notice alleging therein all the grievances and he may be given two weeks’ time
to respond. On receipt of reply to the show-cause notice within two weeks, in
case it is so, the petitioner will be heard and the competent authority, in
accordance with law including but not limited to Section 89, shall pass
appropriate orders as deem fit and proper.
Petition and listed application
stand disposed of in the above terms.
__________________
J U D G E
__________________
J U D G E
N.M.