SARDAR ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). --Furrukh Ameen, ex-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, has filed this under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and the Hon'ble Chief Justice and Judges of Lahore High Court through Registrar, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that notification, dated 23-4-1985, by which his services have been terminated with immediate effect, during probation period under section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, be set aside and he be re-instated in service with all back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed Additional District and Sessions Judge against quota reserved for the Bar on 1-4-1982. However, the services of the appellant were terminated by the impugned notification. He made a representation to the Governor and the Chief Minister Punjab (Annexure 'D') appended with the appeal, but as it did not bear any fruit, he has come before this Tribunal within 30 days of the said notification, Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Advocate-General assisted by the Assistant Advocate-General and Malik Azam Rasool, Advocate alongwith learned District Attorney and have perused the entire record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the termination from service of the appellant did not fall under section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, because the competent authority has terminated him from service although during the period of probation yet the same has been done on account of certain inquiries on the basis of ACR 1983, in which his integrity was shown as doubtful as well as a preliminary inquiry conducted by the learned Sessions Judge, Mianwali. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, even the inquiry, which was so conducted against him, did not culminate in the verdict of guilty, therefore, the impugned notification was hit by the verdict of their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Muhammad Siddique Javaid v. Government of West Pakistan reported as PLD 1974 SC 393. It has been further argued that the appellant was granted extension of one year from 24-4-1984, where he spent 6 months at Bhakkar and special report of District and Sessions Judge, Bhakkar, according to his information, was in his favour. Similarly later six months, he spent at Bahawalpur, but no adverse entry recorded during this period also. It has been argued that there was no material which would sustain the impugned order as there was no material before him to come to the said conclusion, which according to the learned counsel 1 for the appellant all capracious and whimsical.
6. With regard to the work of the appellant it has been submitted that the quantity of work disposed of by the appellant during his service period did not justify him of grading as below average as most of the judgments passed by him, found favour by the Hon'ble High Court. In the end it was vehemently argued that the case of the appellant was not a termination simpliciter but was a removal or a dismissal from service which could not be brought about under section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974.
7. On the other hand learned Advocate-General, Punjab, has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the case of Muhammad Siddique Javaid was distinguishable from the case of the appellant, therefore reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the said judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan was misconceived. Learned Advocate-General has placed reliance on 1982 SCMR 770 Pakistan (Province of Punjab) v. Riaz Ali Khan and has submitted that according to this ruling the competent authority was within its discretion to termi--nate the services of the appellant during probationary period, if his work was found unsatisfactory. It has been further argued that the case of Muhammad Siddique Javed decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan and reported as PLD 1974 SC 393 was due to constitutional guarantee which was available at the relevant time. It has been forcefully argued that the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan of 1973 does not provide any gurantee to a civil servant and his terms and conditions are to be regulated by the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. For this he had relied on the said Act. In the end, it was submitted that as the case of the appellant was fully covered by section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, therefore, the appeal so filed by him be dismissed.
8. We have given our enxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and will reproduce section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, as under: "10. Termination of service.--(1) The service of a civil servant may be terminated without notice-
(i) during the initial or extended period of his probation."
Similarly, section 3 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, would be a relevant section for the decision of this case and same is reproduced as under:- "3. Terms and conditions.--The terms and conditions of service of a civil servant shall be as provided in this Act and the Rules. "
The language of these two sections fairly spell out that a civil servant, on probation or on extended probation period, can be terminated, if the competent authority comes to a decision that his work during the said period, was unsatisfactory and further the language of section 3 of the said Act, makes ipso facto clear that civil servants are governed by the terms and conditions of service as provided in this Act and the Rules framed thereunder. As section 10 is a part of the Act, therefore, the competent authority was empowered to take action under the said section. Furthermore, the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, does not provide any Constitutional guarantee to a civil servant and his terms and conditions of service, are to be regulated by the Punjab Civil Servants Act. This being the position of law obviously, the action taken by the competent authority was legal and no exception can be taken to the same. Be that as it may the entire case of the appellant hinges on the strength of law :aid down in case of Muhammad Siddique Javed Chaudhry v. Government of the Punjab reported as PLD 1974 SC 393. In the said case their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan took notice of a communication addressed by the Registrar, Lahore High Court to the Government, in which a reference was made to the allegation of corruption against the said Muhammad Siddique Javed Chaudhry during the period of probation and as such it was held by Supreme Court of Pakistan that these allegations were a h- stigma against him. It was found in his case that order of termination of service were passed on account of his misconduct and it was held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan that it was a ground of termination of his service to satisfy ourselves, we called for the entire record of this case to find whether the competent authority terminated the service of e: the appellant on the strength of some enquiries or misconduct, which was brought to its notice by the High Court or it was a simpliciter a, termination order when it was so found that the appellant work during the probation period was unsatisfactory.
The record of this case reveals that Registrar, High Court addressed a letter, dated 26-3-1985. In this letter, it was stated that the appellant had not satisfactorily completed the period of probation and as such his further retention in a service was not in the public interest. However, Character Roll of the appellant was forwarded alongwith this letter. We have satisfied ourselves that in this letter the Lahore High Court did not move any other document except the Character Roll so forwarded to Government. Similarly, we have examined the summary submitted by Mr. Shafqat Ezdi Shah, Secretary (Services), dated 15-4-1985, to the Chief Minister a through the learned Chief Secretary, and it was mentioned therein that a the services of the appellant may be terminated in the public interest, on account of failure of the appellant to have satisfactorily completed the period of probation, as this was permissible under section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The learned Chief Minister approved the same and another summary, dated 13-6-1985, was submitted by Secretary (Services) through the learned Chief Secretary in which against the learned Chief Minister informed the Governor as under :- "As the officer failed to complete his probation period satisfactorily, his services were terminated as recommended by the High Court.
35. Submitted for Governor's information."
36. The Governor has seen. Thanks."
(Sd.)
Secretary to Governor Punjab 17-6-1985."
PLD 1974 SC 393. This record also reveals that in that case the communication addressed by the Lahore High Court to Government contained a reference of allegation of corruption against Muhammad Siddique Javed Chaudhry during the period of probation and as such the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that this sort of allegation was a stigma against the said Muhammad Siddique Javed Chaudhry. We also find that the order of termination from service clearly referred to his conduct and therefore, it was held by Supreme Court of Pakistan that it was virtually a termination of services on the ground of misconduct. Keeping both these cases in juxtaposition we are fully satisfied that the order whereby the services of the appellant have been terminated, does not contain any reference whatsoever for the complaint or to the finding of the preliminary inquiry, therefore, it was an order simpliciter under section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. We have perused with respect ruling of the Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as 1982 SCMR 770 Pakistan (Punjab Province) v. Riaz Ali Khan on which reliance has been placed by the learned Advocate- General, Punjab. In this case their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that there was no latent stigma of misconduct, but the sole ground of termination was his unsatisfactory work, therefore, no exception can be taken in the order terminating the services. We have also examined the argument of the learned Advocate---General Punjab, that when the case of Muhammad Siddique Javed Chaudhry was decided there were constitutional guarantee to the civil servants at the relevant time whereas at the time when the appellant's services were terminated, no such constitutional guarantees were available to him. We are also in agreement with this legal proposition, which further strengthens the case of the respondent Government as advocated by the learned Advocate-General Punjab, before us.
9. As we are satisfied that section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants' Act, 1974, the provision which has been invoked by the competent authority for termination of services of the appellant, is itself a part of the terms and conditions of the services of the appellant, he cannot object to the action of the respondent in invoking one of the terms and conditions of his services.
10. The result is, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Judgment be communicated to the parties.
M.Y.H/96/Lb./S