' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner, by four separate petitions under Article 212(3) of the Constitution seeks leave to appeal against the two judgments of the learned Service Tribunal both dated 12-7-1987 whereby his three appeals against the recording of the adverse remarks and another against termination of his services while on probation, were dismissed.
2. The petitioner alongwith others was appointed on 10th of July, 1984 as Additional District and Sessions Judge on probation, for a period of two years. By an order passed on 9th of October, 1986, the period of probation was extended by one year from 23rd of August, 1986. On 26th January, 1987, the following order was passed terminating his services:- "The services of Mr.Tatheer Hussain Shirazi, Additional District and Sessions Judge, R.Y.Khan, are terminated with immediate effect during the probation period under Section 10(1) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974."
' This order of termination of his services was challenged by the Petitioner (now the subject-matter of Civil Petition for leave to Appeal No,722 of 1987) on numerous grounds. The main ground was that the termination was based on adverse reports which were not promptly recorded in accordance with the law nor communicated in time, nor the representation of the petitioner against them sidered before taking this action. The termination of service while on probation amounted to stigma and was the result of victimization, or a mala fide action on account of personal grudge.
The Service Tribunal rejected all the appeals on the ground that no case was made out for interference.
3. The petitioner argued the appeals himself, emphasizing more the non-observance of procedure and law in recording the adverse reports, in time, in communicating them to him, and in disposing of his representations.
4. The law on the probationers' right while in service has been dealt with extensively and authoritatively by this Court in the case of Muhammad Siddique Javed Chaudhry and others PLD 1974 SC 393. Judged by the law laid down in that case it is clear that the petitioner can make out no case for successfully challenging the order of termination of his service while on probation. The order has been passed by the competent authority against whom no grudge or malice is alleged.
It contains no stigma and required no show cause procedure, as such.
5. As regards the recording of the adverse remarks against the petitioner, though these have been recorded somewhat late, the delay as such would not affect their efficacy or legality. The petitioner further cannot claim any right in the procedure prescribed by the High Court for the recording of such remarks and for dealing with them. The Chief Justice as the head of the Institution had to take care and ensured the compliance with the law as best as could take place on the facts and circumstances of the case. No vested right of the Petitioner is involved and his services having been competently terminated, leave no scope for going deeper into the recording of remarks.
6. No question of law of public importance arises and leave to appeal is refused in all the four petitions.