' FAISAL ARAB, J. --- In June, 2011, the petitioner was appointed as Driver in the Intelligence Bureau, the respondent No. 1. He was initially appointed on one year probation, which was further extended for another one year upto May, 2013. However, on 27.3.2013 while still in his probationary period, he was served with a show-cause notice as it was found by respondent No. 1 that he concealed the fact that in the past he was involved in three criminal cases, which he did not disclose in the reformat, that he was required to fill at the time of seeking employment. He submitted his reply to the show-cause notice stating that he has been honorably acquitted in all the three criminal cases. On 19.4.2013 he was awarded major penalty of termination from service. He filed departmental appeal. However, while his departmental appeal was still pending, the show-cause notice issued to him on 27.3.2013 as well as the office order of his termination from service dated 19.4.2013 were withdrawn vide office memorandum dated 13.5.2013. However, on the same day he was terminated simplicitor in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 11(1)(i) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The petitioner filed another departmental representation and then filed appeal before the Service Tribunal impugning both the orders of termination. The respondent in the written reply stated that though the earlier termination order was on the ground that he concealed the factum of his involvement in three criminal cases but the same were subsequently withdrawn and as the probation period was still subsisting, he was terminated simplicitor on 13.05.2013 by invoking the provisions of Section 11(1)(i) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The Service Tribunal vide order dated 24.6.2015 dismissed petitioner's appeal. The petitioner then preferred review petition before the Service Tribunal under Section 4-A of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973, which was also dismissed vide order dated 18.9.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner on 3.12.2015 filed this petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in the first round of litigation, petitioner's services were terminated on the ground that he has not disclosed his involvement in criminal cases whereas in all the three criminal cases that were registered against him, the petitioner has been honorably acquitted and where a person is acquitted honorably, then no stigma can be attached for such involvement. He further contended that even if an employee is on probation, his services cannot be terminated on the ground of misconduct without a proper inquiry. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the cases of Attaullah Sheikh v. WAPDA (2001 SCM R 269), Muhammad Aslam v. Sabir Hussain (2009 SCM R 985) and Secretary Government of Punjab v. Riaz-ul-Haq (1997 SCM R 1552).
3. Petitioner's termination from service based on show-cause notice stood withdrawn vide order dated 13.5.2013 and he being on probation was terminated simplicitor within the probationary period by invoking the provisions of Section 11(1)(i) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, which empowers the Department to terminate the services of a probationer. It has come on record that at the time of appointment e driver in respondent Department. The petitioner had concealed the fact that three F.I.R. (I) F.I.R. No. 189/2003 under Section 11/12 of P.E.H.O. (ii) F.I.R. No. 179/2008 under Section 13(d), A.0.. and (iii) F.I.R. No. 178/2009 under Sections 365-A, 324, 353, P.P.C. read with Section 6/7, ATA at Police Station Tando Adam, were registered against him. This led to the finding of the Service Tribunal "to conceal such a material fact from the quarter concerned could/should not be taken so lightly as it was not a less serious thing. Such a conduct of the petitioner/appellant was certainly prejudicial to good order or service discipline or conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman". When the petitioner was involved in offences such as abduction for ransom and possession of illegal weapons though subsequently acquitted from the charges, he ought to have mentioned the same at the time of appointment in a sensitive department. Leaving this apart, it has come on record that when petitioner's services were terminated on 13.5.2013 under Section 11(1)
(i) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, he was still on probation. As termination order dated 19.04.2013 stood withdrawn. no stigma was attached to his character. It cannot be said that department had no right to subsequently invoke the provisions of Section 11(1)(i) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 in order to terminate the services of a probationer. No question of law of public importance within the meaning of Article 212(3) of the Constitution has been raised, hence no case for grant of leave is made out. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.