' MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR (CHAIRMAN).---Since the above noted appeals are directed against the order of similar nature passed by the competent authority arising out of joint proceedings, therefore are being disposed of through this single order.
2. The facts of this appeal are that the Chief Justice, Lahore High Court accorded approval to the selection of the appellants as Process Servers vide letter dated 4-12-2009. While they were still on probation, the Chief Justice vide order dated 20-5-2010 recalled the approval and directed the Senior Civil Judge, Nankana Sahib to dispense with the services of the appellants with further direction to initiate criminal proceedings against them on account of production of bogus domicile certificates. The Senior Civil Judge, Nankana Sahib vide order dated 25-5-2010 dispensed with the services of the. Appellants. The appellants preferred representation/departmental appeals before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nankana Sahib which was rejected on 16-10-2010.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that no show-cause notices were ever issued to the appellants and they were never provided fair opportunity of defending themselves. No Inquiry Officer was ever appointed. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Nankana Sahib during personal hearing only examined the I.D. Cards of the appellants and passed the impugned order. It is urged that all the rules of natural justice have been violated.
' Conversely the learned Deputy District Attorney submits that the appellants were on probation and their services can be dispensed with any time under Section 10 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. He further urged that the order was passed as the Chief Justice of Hon'ble Lahore High Court had withdrawn the approval on the ground that the appellants had furnished fake/fictitious domicile certificates.
4. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced from both the parties and also perused the record.
5. No doubt service of the probationer can be terminated any time during the probation period, however, it is a well-settled principle of law that if a stigma is attached to the termination of even a probationer, show-cause notice has to be issued to him and fair opportunity of defending himself is to be provided to him, whereas in the instant case, no such exercise was ever taken. Neither any show cause notice was issued to the appellants nor was any reply received from them. Similarly the process of inquiry is lacking. The appellants ought to have been issued show-cause notices and inquiry should have been held strictly in accordance with law. The appellants have been removed from service on the direction of Chief Justice. The competent authority is the Senior Civil Judge, Nankana Sahib who has passed the removal order without application of independent mind and without holding an inquiry and providing reasonable opportunity of showing cause. The appeal before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nankana Sahib was a mere formality. He could not dare go against the direction of Chief Justice. Examining of I.D. Cards by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nankana Sahib at the time of personal hearing at appellate stage would not fill up the void.
6. In view of what has been stated above, these appeals are allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the appellants are reinstated into service from the date of termination from service.
Fresh proceedings may be initiated against the appellants strictly in accordance with law. The nature of intervening period shall however, be determined by the competent authority after the outcome of fresh proceedings.
Appeals, allowed.