Shuja-ud-Din, Member .--Through this service appeal the appellant has impugned the order dated 03.11.2016 and 23.05.2017 whereby his service has been dispensed with.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the instant service appeal are that, the appellant was recruited as Sepoy in Pakistan Rangers (Punjab) through initial appointment on 14.12.2015 for two years on probation. Subsequently , he was deputed transferred to 22-Wing PNR Barri Imam, Islamabad. Prior to his appointm ent he was implicated in a false criminal case through FIR No. 125 of 2015 under Section 376, PPC. The case was a result of family dispute.
Anyhow , the appellant was acquitted from the charge on 28.2.2017. There was no condition mentioned in the advertisement that candidate should have no criminal case pending against him. But the respondent being Competent Authority on coming to know about the criminal case pending in the Court, dispensed with his services of without issuing any Show-Cause Notic e, under Rule 13(2) of the Pakistan Rangers (Recruitment) Rules, 1968 through Office Order dated 3.11.2016. The appellant filed a review petition under Section 27 to the respondent, which was rejected through Of fice Order dated 23.5.2017.
3. Heard Mr. Salman Riaz Chaudhry , learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of appellant who mainly contended that the petitioner was recruited initially as Sepoy by respondent on 14.12.2015 on probation for a period of two years. Subsequently he was deputed/ transferred to 22-Wing PNR Barri Imam, Islamabad. The criminal case FIR No. 125 of 2015 was registered with malafide intentions by complainant based on family dispute on 28.2.2015. It is next contended that the services of petitioner could not have been dispensed with or terminated without issuance of show-cause notice under the relevant Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules and on this score alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is urged that the criminal case against appellant does not constitute unsatisfactory work or conduct. The Stigm a if treated as moral turpitude, then due legal course as provided in the E & D Rules should have been adopted. He placed reliance on reported cases viz. PLD 1974 (SC) 339 and 2008 SCMR 1516 . It has been argued that the appellant was acquitted in the said criminal case on 28.2.2017 therefore; he might have not be deprived from his right. The appellant has been condemned unheard therefore the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Reliance is placed on reported cases viz. 2009 PLC CS 797, 2000 SCMR 1743 , PLC 2006 CS 789 and 2007 SCMR 554. The appellant prayed for acceptance of his appeal by setting aside the impugned orders with back benefits.
4. The respondent in para wise comments has submitted that the appellant is a criminal minded who abducted and raped the daughter of his maternal uncle. A criminal case FIR No. 125/2015 was lodged in P.S Yousaf Wale District Sahiwal on 28.2.2015 before his enrolment in Pakistan Rangers, but he concealed the facts. As such his services were rightly dispensed with under Rule 13(2) of Pakistan Rangers (Recruitment) Rules, 1968. As per verification report of SSP Special Branch Sahiwal, dated 16.10.2016, the name of appellant was not found clear from security point of view being involved in a criminal case. He preferred his departmental appeal to the respondent for reinstatement which was considered and rejected on 23.5.2017. Learned AAG argued that this appeal not maintainable as the appellant was not confirmed employee of the Rangers and found unfit during probation period.
5. Heard. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of the appellant in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. We are not persuaded to agree with the prime contention of learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of appellant that the appellant was removed from service without adopting proper procedure, reasons being that the appellant was not a confirmed Sepoy rather lie was on probation and his antecedents were being verified. If is irrefutable fact that the FIR was registered on 28.2.2015 before the recruitment of appellant. The complainant lodged FIR under Section 376, PPC with the allegation that his daughter Farazana Bibi was enticed to commits rape by the appellant. The appellant, irrespective of its veracity , did not disclose this fact at the time of his recruitment in Pakistan Ranger (Punjab). So much so, he kept mum while facing criminal trial at Sahiwal. Admittedly , the appellant was under probation w.e.f 07.12.2015 to 7.12.2017. Meanwhile, the respondent department sought for the report of character verification of appellant from the SSP, Special Branch, Sahiwal on 18.10.2016. Thereupon, the respondents got knowledge about the criminal case against appellant. The nature of allegations recorded in the FIR makes it a case of moral turpitude which has intrinsic impact on the conduct of appellant. Yet it is well established that the appellant concealed the registration of criminal case against him at the time of his recruitment which is nothing but a deliberate concealment of facts and as such misconduct. The appellant, however , was acquitted of the charge on the basis of doubts but the fitness to serve in Pakistan Ranger depends entirely on the standards fixed by the employer . So far as the probation is concerned, according to Rule 13(2) of Pakistan Rangers Recruitment Rules, 1968: "If the work or conduct of a member of the Force during the period of probation has in the opinion of the appointing authority not been satisfactory , the appointing authority , may not withstanding that the period of probation has not expired dispense with his services, if he was appointed by initial recruitment and if was appointed otherwise, revert him to his former rank or if there be no such rank dispense with his services."
The Rule 13, inter alia, provides that initially the period of probation would be two years if appointed by initial recruitment and for a period of one year if appointed otherwise. The question of satisfactory work or conduct is to be determined by the appointing authority . Obviously , the appointing authority through normal tier of formation had rightly sought for character verification of appellant during the period of probation. On the basis of report of Special Branch, the authority in exercise of powers conferred under the rules, dispensed with the services of appellant who was not confirmed as such.
6. We have also adverted to the contentio n of learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner that without issuance of show-cause notice the servic es of petitioner could not have been terminated. There is no cavil with the proposition that being probationer the services of petitioner could have been terminated during the period of probation without any notice pursuant to the provisions as, contemplated in Rule 13(2) of Pakistan Rangers Recruitment Rules, 1968. It is a case of "unsatisfactory conduct during probation period "hence the question of any notice prior to termination of service does not arise. Such order cannot be equated with that of "dismissal" or "removal" where a probationer would be eligible for a show-cause notice. In the present case it was not obligatory for the Competent Authority to have issued a show-cause notice prior to dispensing with the services of appellant pursuant to the Rule 13(2). In this regard we respectfully place reliance on the dictum as laid down in reported cases vide; Ch. Muhammad Hussain Naqashbandi vs. Government of the Punjab and others (2004 SCMR 44), Tahir Hussain Shirazi Governor of the Punjab (1990 SCMR 1510 ); Muhammad Siddiq Javaid Chaudhry v.
Government of West Pakistan (PLD 1974 SC 393); Pakistan (Punjab Province) v. Riaz Ali Khan (1982 SCMR 770).
It is worth-mentioning that the appointing authority of a disciplined Force under the peculiar circumstances of case in hand cannot be compelled to reinstate or confirm the petitioner as reinstatement and confirmation both depends on the subjective assessment of a particular incumbent which squarely falls within the domain of appointing authority .
7. In the light of what has been discussed above, we are fortified in holding that the instant service appeal is devoid of merits. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. Parties be informed.