HYDERABAD: A division bench of the Sindh High Court, Hyderabad circuit, has dismissed a petition filed by the Sindh Agriculture University director finance against his suspension and issuance of a show cause notice to him by the Chief Minister’s Secretariat.
The petition was dismissed on Oct 13 by the bench comprising Justice Abdul Karim Memon and Justice Mohammad Jaffer Raza and the order was issued on Thursday.
Advocate Saulat Rizvi represented the SAU and the petitioner, Syed Fida Hussain Shah, was represented by Advocate Malik Naeem Iqbal and Advocate Mohammad Saleem Khaskheli.
The petitioner had prayed the court to declare illegal and mala fide the suspension notified on May 25, 2026 as well as the show-cause notice dated June 1, 2026. He urged the court to direct respondents to allow him to complete his tenure of three years as the director finance as per his Sept 20, 2024 notification.
He stated that respondents should be restrained from initiating any disciplinary proceedings against him on the basis of allegations contained in the show-cause notice.
He stated that he was appointed as the director finance for three years. He informed the bench that he had objected to the SAU vice chancellor’s act of facilitating “unauthorised payments” amounting to Rs69.184m due to which the VC had levelled false allegations against him.
He further stated that an inquiry committee was constituted on Jan 7, 2026 which submitted its report on March 13, 2026 finding major charges against him unsubstantiated and recommending only a warning for procedural lapse on his part. Still, he said, the competent authority took impugned actions without fresh material or inquiry.
The bench asked the petitioner’s counsel to explain how this petition was maintainable when the suspension and show-cause notice pertained to the conditions of service and disciplinary proceedings. The counsel argued that these actions were arbitrary and contrary to statutory framework. He said that under the Act of 1977, SAU’s syndicate holds disciplinary powers over university officers, thus chief minister could not exercise such powers to initiate disciplinary proceedings.
Advocate Saulat Rizvi contested maintainability, saying that the petitioner was appointed on a contract basis and his service could be terminated on a one month’s notice. He alleged that the petitioner performed inefficiently, delayed payments for completed development works, obstructed administration and exceeded his job description. After suspension, the counsel claimed, the petitioner delayed handing over the charge.
The bench ruled that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution was discretionary and was not ordinarily exercised to interrupt disciplinary proceedings at the show-cause stage particularly where competent authority allowed the employee to submit explanation and a final order imposing a penalty was passed.
The court said that suspension being an interim measure pending further proceedings does not by itself amount to a final determination of guilt or termination of his appointment. It said a show-cause notice ordinarily does not give rise to an enforceable cause of action unless it was demonstrably without jurisdiction and issued in bad faith.
In the circumstances, said the order, no exceptional ground was demonstrated to justify interference with ongoing disciplinary proceedings at this stage under Article 199 of the Constitution. “The petition is, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable,” it said, adding that the petitioner could, however, remain at liberty to challenge any final adverse order through remedy available to him under law.
Published in Dawn, October 17th, 2026
