' ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-- Sikandar-e-Azam has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded the Secretary Food Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore. The Director, Food Department, Punjab, Lahore, and the Deputy Director, Food Department, Sargodha Region, Sargodha, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the order dated 11-6-1981, dispensing with the appellant's service may be set aside, with all back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Junior Clerk in the Office of District Food Controller Sargodha on 13-3-1979. He resumed duty on 15-3-1979. His services were terminated w,e,f, 1-6-1981. The total service of the appellant works out to be 667 days, out of which he availed leave for 444 days and attended office for 223 days only. His work and conduct during the probation period remained unsatisfactory. His probation period was extended for 319 days to further watch his work and conduct. Even during the period of extension of the probation period, the work of the appellant was found quite unsatisfactory. The services of the appellant, during the probation period, were dispensed with, due to his unsatisfactory work and conduct by the Deputy Director Food, Sargodha, vide his order, dated 11-6-1981. The appellant made an appeal to the Director Food, Punjab, which was considered and rejected vide his order dated 29-5-1982. The appellant yet made another appeal to the Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Food Department, which was rejected vide order dated 28-4-1983. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that a reference be made to Annexure 'A', with the appeal which shows that the appellant was allowed to seek admission in the Law College by the respondent No,3 with the condition that the leave required for this purpose would be allowed. Respondent No,3 allowed the appellant leave for some period but later on refused to allow him the leave to complete the full course which was not in accordance with the above order. The appellant's counsel also made a reference to Annexure 'E', containing the rejection of the request of the appellant for extension in leave and directing him to resume duty by 31-5-1981 positively, failing which the services of the appellant would stand terminated w,e,f, 1-6-1981. It has been pointed out by the appellant's counsel that immediately after this, the services of the appellant were dispensed with from 1-6-1981 by respondent No,3 vide his order dated 11-6-1981, on the plea of unsatisfactory service and conduct of the appellant. It has been submitted by the appellant's counsel that these basis for termination of the service are not correct and are unjustified. The actual fact for termination of the service of the appellant is that he required extension in his leave for completion of the course in Law College which was not allowed by the respondents, though promised when he was allowed permission to join the College. Thus, the service of the appellant has been dispensed with on malacious grounds. He has prayed that the impugned orders be declared null and void, and quashed.
5. Rebutting the above arguments, the learned District Attorney assisted with the representative of the Department has submitted that the work and conduct of the appellant was quite unsatisfactory during the probation period, and hence his services have been dispensed with in accordance with the rules and law. No doubt the appellant was given the permission for such admission in the Law College, but the appellant's work and conduct was quite unsatisfactory during the period he attended his work in the office of the District Food Controller, Sargodha. It has been contended by the learned District Attorney that the appellant should have been thankful to the Departmental authorities for allowing him admission in the Law College and he should have performed his duties more efficiently but the result was on the contrary. The learned District Attorney also produced the record to show the reports of his superiors to prove that the work of the appellant during the probation period has been unsatisfactory. He was administered a warning to be careful and cautious in performance of public service but he did not improve his work and conduct. Concluding his argument, the learned District Attorney has submitted that the impugned order dated 11-6-1981 passed by respondent No,3 is fully justified and lawful.
6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have consulted the record of this case very carefully. At the time of arguments the record regarding the work and conduct of the appellant was produced before us. After perusal of the record we are satisfied that the appellant's work and conduct during the probation period had been quite unsatisfactory. The record also shows that the appellant did not care to improve his work and conduct when he was directed to do so by his superiors. Thus, the order of dispensing with, the services of the appellant during the probation period, is in order, within the rules and lawful. No injustice has been done with the appellant and there is no justification to interfere with the orders passed by the respondents.
7. Keeping in view the above analysis of the case, there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such.
' There is no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.