1. GHULAM RASOOL SHAIKH (CHAIRMAN): The services of the appellant were terminated under section 11 of the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973 after expiry of 14 days from the date of receipt of order dated 20-10-1975. He filed departmental representation against this order which was rejected on 26-10-1975. Being aggrieved he has filed appeal in this Tribunal under section 4 of the Sind Service Tribunal Act, 1973.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was appointed on regular basis on the recommendations of the Public Service Commission. He relied on subsection (2) of section 11 of the Sind Civil Ser--vants Act, 1973 according to which the person whose services are terminated shall ordinarily be the one who is the most junior in such cadre or grade. He, however, admitted that the appellant was a `probationer' when his service were terminated but he pleaded that it was not a termination of service simpliciter but he had been punished and removed from service for some misconduct which was never brought to his notice and no enquiry was held. To support his contention that even a probationer could not be removed from services without enquiry in case his removal was based on misconduct, he quoted the authority of the Supreme Court reported in PLD 1974 SC 393. The learned Counsel also made an application to call for the record in order to support his contention but we rejected his request for the simple reason that these was nothing on record before us to show that the removal of the appellant was based on misconduct. We are not expected to go beyond the record which has been produced before us.
3. There is also no indication in the impugned order itself that the appellant was removed for misconduct. Consequently there was no justification for calling the record. Even appellant himself never alleged in the memo. Of appeal that he was removed for mis--conduct. In fact it was clearly stated that there was no allegation of any corruption or misconduct against him. Thus it cannot be said that he was removed for misconduct. In the case decided by the Supreme Court, the reword itself showed that the removal was based on misconduct whereas there is no such indication in the present record which is before us. Con--sequently the authority of the Supreme Court is not applicable, apart from the fact that it was based on the Constitution of 1962 which had afforded certain protections go a public servant whereas no such protection is available in the Constitution of 1973. Since he was a probationer and the impugned order show; that it was a ample discharge from service and there was no element of misconduct involved in the case, no chow-cause notice or enquiry was necessary and the Government was competent by the rules to terminate the services of an employee during the period of probation. Consequently the impugned order does not call for any interference.
4. In the result the appeal is dismissed.