' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.---Through the instant Service Appeal under section 5 of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act, 1991 the appellant has assailed Notification No.204/RHC/CJJ, dated 15th November, 2012, issued by the Registrar of this Court whereby her services have been terminated.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Civil Judge, vide Notification No.237/RHC/B.30, dated 14-8-2008. She assumed charge of the above said post on 17-11-2008. She earned adverse remarks in her ACR for the period from 1-1-2009 to 31-12-2009. She made representation for expunction of adverse remarks. Her representation was allowed and adverse remarks were treated as advisory in nature. She again learnt adverse remarks in her ACR for the period from 2-5-2011 to 31-12-2011. In special reports dated 28-7-2011 and 29-10-2011, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Gujranwala reported that she had lost her credibility. In special report dated 25-8-2012, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Faisalabad submitted that the appellant did not enjoy good reputation. Thereafter, her services were terminated on 15-11-2012. The appellant allegedly filed departmental appeal on 5-12-2012 through mail. However, the respondent- department denied receiving of the said departmental appeal, vide letter dated 14-3-2013. Hence, the instant appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the termination order against the appellant has been passed without application of independent mind as such liable to be set aside; that the appellant submitted her departmental appeal through mail but the respondent-department did not acknowledge receipt of the same with mala fide intention; that there is no specific mode for filing departmental appeal; that the appellant had completed her probation period and by operation of law had become permanent employee as such her services could not be terminated without conducting regular inquiry; that provisions of section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 have wrongly been applied in the case of the appellant; that termination of the appellant's services is based on special reports of the learned District and Sessions Judges, which were not supported by any cogent and convincing evidence; that as the special reports contained serious allegations, which stigmatized the appellant, regular inquiry could not be dispensed with; and that she has been condemned unheard which act of the respondent-department is against the principal of natural justice. In support of above arguments learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the cases of Qaiser Masud v. Secretary Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Government of Punjab, Lahore and another (2011 SCM R 1181), The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Peshawar Division and another v. Farman Ali (1991 SCM R 400), Director General Rangers Pakistan (Sindh) Karachi and another v. Abdul Rashid (2000 SCM R 643), and Abdul Hafeez Abbasi and others v. Managing Director, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, Karachi and others (2002 SCM R 1034).
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant did not file departmental appeal as she failed to bring on record any proof showing its receipt by office of the respondent department; that the instant appeal is barred by time as the termination notification was issued on 15-11-2012 whereas the appeal was filed on 2-4-2013; that services of the appellant were terminated within her maximum probation period of four years, which was to expire on 16-11- 2012, therefore, no regular inquiry was needed before issuing the impugned notification; that the impugned notification is not the result of any mala fide or colourable exercise of powers as such is unexceptionable; that it is termination simplicitor without any stigma; that the appellant earned bad reputation within a short tenure of her service; that as per terms and conditions of appointment of the appellant her services could be terminated without notice and without assigning any reasons; that she was not only reported to be corrupt but her performance was also assessed below average; and that the instant appeal has no merits and is liable to be dismissed.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The appellant claims to have filed departmental appeal through ordinary mail. The respondent- department denied to have received her appeal through any mode of service. As per the appellant's own version she sent her appeal through ordinary mail and she is unable to bring on record any proof to show that the same was received in office of the respondent No.237/RHC/B.30, dated 14-11-2008 appointment of the appellant was to be considered with effect from the date she assumed charge of the post. As per record the appellant assumed charge of the post on 17-11- 2008. She remained on probation for a period of four years as per condition No.4 of appointment notification. Her probation period had to expire on 16-11-2012 but prior to that her services were terminated on 15-11-2012. She did not attain the status of a confirmed/regular employee and as per condition No.3 of her appointment notification her services could be terminated without notice and without assigning any reason. In the referred case of Qaiser Masud v. Secretary Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Government of Punjab, Lahore and another (supra), the appellant had completed his probation period, therefore, case of the present appellant is distinguishable from the said appellant. Even otherwise, during probation period as per section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 no notice was required to be issued to the appellant before issuing the impugned notification. The respondent-department has thus, rightly terminated services of the appellant and has not committed any illegality in issuing the impugned notification. The case of Abdul Hafeez Abbasi and others v. Managing Director, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, Karachi and others (supra) is also not applicable to the case of the present appellant as in the cited case also the appellants/employees had completed their probation period much before their terminations and had attained the status of permanent employees, which is not the position in the case of the present appellant. In the case of Director General Rangers Pakistan (Sindh ) Karachi and another v. Abdul Rashid (supra), as the appellant/civil servant had completed his probation period f four years his termination without issuance of notice and holding regular inquiry was held to be illegal. So, case of the present appellant is distinguishable from the cases cited by learned counsel for the appellant.
9. As per record, right from induction into service the appellant remained under clouds. Her performance was evaluated below average, which is substantiated from the fact that she cleared departmental examination in four attempts. Her integrity was also questioned in two ACRs. In three special reports her conduct was not found satisfactory and it was stated that she had lost integrity and credibility among litigants and Bar Members. It was also reported that she did not enjoy good reputation and was a source of bringing bad name to the judiciary being involved in malpractices.
The impugned notification itself shows that it was a termination simpliciter and the appellant has not been stigmatized in any manner whatsoever. There is nothing on record to suggest any mala fide or colourable exercise of powers by the respondent-department in terminating services of the appellant. In the given circumstances we hold that there existed sufficient reasons to pass termination order against the appellant.
10. In view of what has been discussed above, the instant appeal has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.