' MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, J/Member.--- This appeal under section 5 of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act, 1991 has been filed against the termination order dated 16-2-2004 against which the representation filed by the appellant was also rejected vide notification dated 15-7-2009 hence this appeal.
2. The brief facts necessary for just decision of the case are that appellant was appointed as Civil Judge vide notification dated 13-11-2000 on probation and vide notification dated 25-11-2000; he was posted as Civil Judge Cum Judicial Magistrate at Ali Pur District Muzaffar Garh. During his service, he passed the departmental examination and on the special report submitted by the Reporting Officer, vide notification dated 6-1-2004, the powers of Civil Judge 2nd Class were conferred upon the appellant. However, on 16-2-2004, the following order was passed terminating his services:--- "The Chief Justice and Judges are pleased to terminate the services of Mr. Mazhar Gilani, Civil Judge-Cum Judicial Magistrate, Layyah during his extended period of probation, under section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, in the public interest, with immediate effect."
3. The contentions of learned counsel for the appellant are that before taking the extreme step of termination it was a legal obligation of the respondents to provide him an opportunity of hearing as it is settled law that no one should be condemned unheard. The termination was based on an adverse report of a Reporting Officer whereas there were six Reporting Officers under whom the appellant had worked and out of them only one Reporting Officer recorded adverse report against him. The termination of service while on probation amounted to a stigma and a result of victimization or a mala fide action on account of personal grudge of the Reporting Officer and representation against it was pending when the impugned termination order was passed. It is further added that the authority did not take into consideration reports of the other Reporting Officers and his otherwise unblemished record. Adds that disregarding the other reports and giving preference to only one report of a Reporting Officer made appellant's case of detailed enquiry, which was not carried out resulting in miscarriage of justice. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Tribunal recorded in Service Appeal No,3 of 2005 dated 16-5-2014 and it is submitted that the case of the appellant is identical and he may also be granted the same benefit extended in that judgment.
4.. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that definite opinion had been drawn by the Reporting Officer in his report against which appellant's representation has also been dismissed.. It is further submitted that the authority at the time of deciding the matter, had rightly relied upon the adverse remarks recorded by the Reporting Officer, therefore, no illegality has been committed by the authority while exercising power conferred under section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act regarding the probationer, hence order of the authority is in consonance with law and leaves no room for interference by this Tribunal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through record of the case.
6. There were six reports available on the record encapsulating the whole judicial service of the appellant consisting of 3 years and 2 months. It is noticed that in all these reports, except one, the appellant was found as honest, suitable for further retention in service, fit for promotion and a hard worker, whereas in one report containing the adverse remarks, all qualifications mentioned above have been found otherwise. Special reports were also summoned from all the Reporting Officers, who stood on their legs and made the same reports of the appellant's unblemished character and record.
7. In such eventuality, to our mind the opinion of one of the six Reporting Officer should not have been given preference and superior weightage. All other Reporting Officers have recorded the appellant A having unblemished service record and in this precise situation, preference given to one of the Reporting Officer (without holding any detailed enquiry) is unjustified. The appellant had levelled allegation of mala fide with specific assertions in his representation and grounds of appeal against the Reporting Officers. The representation of the appellant remained pending against the adverse remarks from 2003 to 2005. It is also noticed that the adverse remarks report was submitted by the Reporting Officer in the month of January, 2003 and it was the most appropriate time for the authority to take a decision as to the judicial officer, however by allowing him two years of further service being which time also his Reporting Officers aforesaid him quite contrary to the adverse report of the previous year has created serious doubts as to the worthiness of the adverse report.
8. It is also observed that drawing of definite opinion of appellant "as being corrupt by instinct" can only be determined on the basis of concrete evidence and examples and it is astonishing for us to note that in the presence of other reports where the appellant was declared by the five Reporting Officers to be honest, hardworking and suitable for retention, how the opinion of only one Reporting Officer could prevail to remove the probationer from service. If a person has any "good" or "bad" habit or trait by "instinct" then it is very difficult for the said person to hide the same and it would not have been possible for the appellant to be not exposed to the other five. Reporting Officers.
Therefore, if the learned Reporting Officer was making such an exceptional allegation against the appellant then he should have supported the same by some material or at least citing any instance to support the same.
9. Another aspect which has caught our attention that even after the aforesaid adverse remarks, the very fact that appellant was conferred powers of Civil Judge 2nd Class during pendency of his representation implies that except the impugned adverse remarks, he had otherwise good record, > sufficient to convince the authority to grant him powers of Civil Judge 2nd Class. It is also noticed that any proof to substantiate the allegation of being corrupt was never brought on record, on the basis of which, such a serious charge was levelled. On the other hand the unblemished service record of the appellant established through reports of five other Reporting Officers cannot be ignored and deserve due consideration. In this scenario, the allegation of being corrupt by instinct seems to be vague, sketchy, inconsistent and tainted with some mala fide and personal grudge, as the observation of one Reporting Officer in the absence of any proof could not be given precedence over the remaining unblemished record of the appellant.
10. For what has been discussed above, the impugned termination order is not sustainable in the eye of law. Appeal is allowed and order of the authority is set aside. The appellant is directed to be reinstated in service.