A terminated employee can be reinstated in service
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a government schoolteacher, appointed as a High School Teacher in 1995, who worked in a rural school for about nine years. His salary was abruptly stopped, and three years later he was verbally told he was no longer a government employee because his appointment was allegedly based on false or fictitious documents. Crucially, he was never given a written termination order, no show-cause notice was issued, and no proper inquiry was conducted before he was removed.
The Sindh Services Tribunal ruled in his favor. It held that since the termination was never formally documented, it was void from the very beginning, illegal, and issued without proper authority. The Tribunal also rejected the argument that his appeal was filed too late, reasoning that no time limit applies to challenging an order that was never validly made in the first place.
The Tribunal emphasized that the employee had served for nearly a decade without complaint, drawing salary and performing his duties, which gave him a valuable right to his job. The fault, it found, lay entirely with the authorities for failing to detect any irregularity for over nine years, not with the employee. As a remedy, the authorities were directed to reinstate him from the date of his removal, along with all back-benefits he was legally entitled to.
This judgment matters because it protects long-serving employees from being dismissed without due process, and confirms that unlawful terminations can be challenged and reversed through reinstatement with back pay.
یہ مقدمہ ایک سرکاری اسکول ٹیچر سے متعلق تھا جسے 1995 میں ہائی اسکول ٹیچر مقرر کیا گیا تھا اور جس نے ایک دیہی اسکول میں تقریباً نو سال تک خدمات انجام دیں۔ اس کی تنخواہ اچانک روک دی گئی، اور تین سال بعد اسے زبانی طور پر بتایا گیا کہ وہ اب سرکاری ملازم نہیں رہا کیونکہ مبینہ طور پر اس کی تقرری جھوٹے یا جعلی دستاویزات کی بنیاد پر ہوئی تھی۔ اہم بات یہ ہے کہ اسے کبھی تحریری طور پر برطرفی کا حکم نہیں دیا گیا، نہ کوئی شوکاز نوٹس جاری کیا گیا، اور نہ ہی اسے ہٹانے سے پہلے کوئی مناسب انکوائری کی گئی۔
سندھ سروسز ٹریبونل نے اس کے حق میں فیصلہ دیا۔ ٹریبونل نے قرار دیا کہ چونکہ برطرفی کو کبھی باقاعدہ طور پر دستاویزی شکل نہیں دی گئی، اس لیے یہ شروع ہی سے کالعدم، غیر قانونی، اور بغیر مناسب اختیار کے جاری کی گئی تھی۔ ٹریبونل نے اس دلیل کو بھی مسترد کر دیا کہ اس کی اپیل تاخیر سے دائر کی گئی، یہ کہتے ہوئے ک
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
A wrongfully terminated employee can be reinstated on the precedent of this judgment of Sindh Services Tribunal. Citation Name : 2011 PLC 526 SERVICE-TRIBUNAL-SINDH Side Appellant : GOHRAM SOOMRO Side Opponent : SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION S. 4---termination of service---Appeal---Appellant who was appointed as High School Teacher (B-16) on 13-8-1995, continued to serve as school teacher in rural area for about nine years, but all of a sudden his monthly salary was stopped---Appellant however continued to serve the department, while three years thereafter on 28-4-2007, he was verbally informed that he was no more a government servant on the ground that he was a bogus employee; as his appointment was made on false/fictitious documents---termination of the appellant from service was not made through any written order---Not only any show-cause notice was issued to the appellant, but detailed enquiry was also not conducted in the matter---Appellant who continued receiving salary for not less than a period of nine years without even being questioned, with the passage of a decade in service, had acquired a very valuable right and if was thrown out of job at that stage and his age, he could never get a like job elsewhere for various reasons including the stigma of dismissal---Order of termination of the appellant, was void ab initio, illegal and without jurisdiction---Appeal by the appellant was not hit by any provisions of limitation as no time would run against order of termination ---Appellant in view of his long unblemished service had acquired a valuable right---No fault was shown on the part of the appellant, but it lay entirely on the authorities, who were either so careless or in a deep slumber for more than 9 years to learn about alleged irregularity in appointment of the appellant---Authorities were directed to reinstate the appellant from the date he was removed from service, with all back-benefits admissible under the law.