Brief facts glean out from the instant writ petition are that vide appointment letter dated 15th March 2011, petitioner was appointed as Director Works (BPS-19) by respondent i,e, Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad. According to letter of appointment, petitioner was placed on probation for 2 years. In pursuance of appointment., petitioner assumed his duties in the University w,e,f, 13.4.2011.
Due to poor performance and unsatisfactory work his services were terminated with immediate effect, vide notification dated 7th of Feb. 2012. Through instant writ petition, petitioner called in question notification dated 7.2.2012 through which his services were terminated.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent authorities through arbitrary exercise of authority, without issuance of notice, holding of inquiry and confronting the petitioner terminated his services unilaterally, so much so opportunity of hearing has not been provided to the petitioner.
The learned counsel further submits that impugned notification on face of it is tainted with mala fide, ulterior motives and in order to achieve nefarious designs to bring some blue eyed person, against regular post.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with petition.
3. In order to understand the issue and resolve the controversy, I find it appropriate to reproduce the contents of letter of appointment which are as under:-- "QUAID-I-AZAM UNIVERSITY Ref. No, ESH/2011-518.
ISLAMABAD PAKISTAN Dated 15 March, 2011.
Mr. Osman Mahmood, House No, 50, Street No, 3, Sector E-7, Islamabad Subject: APPOINTMENT AS DIRECTOR WORKS BPS-19 In pursuance of the decision of the Syndicate dated 12.3.2011, you have been appointed as Director Works (BPS-19) in this University on the following terms and conditions; (a)you shall be on probation initially for a period of two years; (b)your appointment shall be terminable at three months' notice on either side or on payment of last pay in lieu of notice period; (c)You shall draw your pay Cyr Rs, 19680/- P.M in BPS-19 (19680-970-39080); (d)Your appointment shall be subject to production of a medical fitness certificate from a Government Hospital or University Medical Officer; (e)In all other matters, your service shall be governed under the Rules, Regulations and Service Statutes of the University in force from time to time.
In case the above terms and conditions are acceptable to you, please report for duty within one month of issuance of this Offer Letter. (DR. SHAFIQ-UR-REHMAN) REGISTRAR"
4. Plain reading of terms and conditions contained herein above, makes it abundantly clear that petitioner was on probation for a period of 2 years, which started w,e,f, 13.4.2011 and was to end on 12.4.2013. Accordingly to clause-b of letter of appointment, services of petitioner were terminable at 3 months' notice on either side or on payment of last pay in lieu of notice period. When confronted with this, the learned counsel for petitioner forcefully argued that, requirement of clause-b of the appointment letter have not been met with. I astonished to hear the reply of the learned counsel, as impugned notification dated 7th of Feb. 2012 belied the assertion of petitioner, contents of same are provided herein under:-- "QUAID-I-AZAM UNIVERSITY (Establishment Section) No, Eatt:/2012-161 Feb. 7, 2012. NOTIFICATION In anticipation of the approval of the Syndicate, the services of Mr. Osman Mahmood, Director Works (BPS-19) are hereby terminated with immediate effect due to his poor performance and unsatisfactory work.
He will be entitled to receive three months' pay in lieu of notice period as per terms and condition of his appointment letter vide clause-b of Letter No, Estt/2011-518 dated 15.3.2011. (Underlining is mine).
This issues with the approval of the Vice-Chancellor. REGISTRAR"
5. The contents of impugned notification fully demonstrate that while adhering to terms and conditions, contained in the appointment letter, petitioner has been declared entitled to receive 3 month pay in lieu of notice period, therefore, this assertion of the learned counsel is totally misconceived and besides the record.
6. It is important to mention here that services of the petitioner have not been terminated on the charges of "misconduct", regarding which even for temporary employee regular inquiry is necessary as allegation, of mis-conduct brings stigma to the profile of any employee. In the instant matter, authority terminated the services on the ground of poor performance and unsatisfactory work and this is exclusive domain of authorities to evaluate the performance. One of the object of probation period, obviously i4 evaluation of performance/work of any employee to the satisfaction of the authorities and if authorities found that performance is poor or below standard, the services of any employee on probation can be terminated and dispensed with.
Thus for the foregoing reasons, instant writ petition is dismissed in limine.