ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---Mr. Muhammad Hanif son of Noor Khan, was appointed as Frash in the office of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore in B-1 (Rs.440--10--640) with effect from 27-12-1986 (F.N.) but order was issued on 8-1-1987. l-I~ services were terminated w.e.f.
22-10-1989 (F.N.) under Rule 11(1) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. He was paid salary for 14 days. The appellant filed departmental appeal to the Chairman, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which was rejected. Therefore, he has come in appeal before this Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
2. We have heard Mian Mahmood Hussain, Advocate for the appellant. It is argued that order of termination of services of the appellant is illegal and not in accordance with the rules. It is submitted that appellant has completed the probationary period. Thereafter, under the disciplinary proceedings, he was removed without proper inquiry which is not in accordance with the law. He has referred to PLD 1974 SC 393 and 1989 PLC (C.S.) 521.
3. Hafiz Tariq Naseem, Advocate for the respondents submitted that during the probationary period while terminating his services, show-cause notice was not necessary. Therefore, order of termination of the appellant could not be challenged.
4. The appellant was appointed as Frash vide order dated 8-1-1987 on the following terms and conditions:-- "He will be on probation for a period of one year with effect from the date he joins his duty of the post extendable by an order either before or after its termination by a further period not exceeding six month. Provided that if no order has been made by the date following the termination or either of the aforementioned probationary period the appointment shall be deemed to be held until further orders."
Through this order he was on probation for one year with effect from the date of his joining duty (i.e. 27-12-1986). He completed one year on 26-12-1987. He continued in service for about 2 years and 10 months, when his services were terminated on 25-11-1989. Therefore, after completing the probationary' period, in our view, termination of services of the appellant, was not in accordance with the rules. Let us refer to rule 11(1) of Civil Servants Act, 1973, which is reproduced as under: "The service of a civil servant may be terminated without notice--
(i) during the initial or extended period of his probation:".
Even otherwise, in case of a Government servant after completion of two years in service, the probation automatically ceases, and he cannot be removed simplifier. Reference is made to proviso to section 21(4) of Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, which provides "that, subject to the provisions of proviso to subsection (2) of section 6 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 in the absence of an order under sub-rule (3), the period of probation shall, on the expiry of the extended period under sub-rule (2), be deemed to have successfully been completed". To that extent Hafiz Tariq Naseem, counsel for the respondents has admitted that provisions of rule 11(1) of Civil Servants Act, 1973 do not apply in the present case.
5. It is stated that reasons for termination have not been given. The department filed comments in which it is stated that termination was simpliciter, hence invoking the provisions of Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules was not required, but there is a letter, dated 9th May, 1992 from the Registrar addressed to the appellant, wherein it has been stated that the services of the appellant were terminated on the charge of misconduct under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. Therefore, the termination of the appellant was not simpliciter, and for that, procedure laid down under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, not having been adopted, the order so passed cannot sustain. This view is fortified by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Siddiqi Javid Chaudhary v. Government of Pakistan reported in PLD 1974 SC 393, wherein all these points have been, fully considered and held as under: "To such a removal or dismissal a stigma attaches, but if all that has happened is that the read reason of discharge is the unsatisfactory work of an employee but the Government does not proceed on the basis that he is guilty or deficient and simply terminates his service in accordance with terms of his agreement of service, that would not be a removal."
In another case of Mr. Ghaffar Ali v. Sub-Divisional Education Officer, reported in 1989 PLC (C.S.I 521.
It has been held that: "Persons already employed could not be removed/dismissed from service without observing legal formalities."
6. In this case neither the show-cause notice has been given nor any disciplinary proceedings have been taken against the appellant, when appellant had already crossed the probationary period, and the conditions laid down that he will continue on probation for indefinite period is contrary to rules and law.
7. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order 8-1-1987 of termination of the appellant is set aside and the appellant is reinstated into service with all back benefits. The appeal is accepted. 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.