1. ' The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has taken exception to the order dated 1st of September, 1993 whereby his services were terminated.
2. ' Facts briefly are that the petitioner was initially appointed as officiating/temporary Junior Clerk in BPS-5 vide letter No, 193-SE-Estt., dated 15-1-1990 for three months subject to his passing the typing test within the specified period in the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad.
3. The petitioner could not qualify the typing test and, as such, quite a few extensions were given to him to qualify the same failing which it was made clear to him that his services would be terminated without notice. The last extension in this regard was given by the Office Order No, 2656- 66-SE-Estt., dated 16-12-1990 wherein it was made clear that the period of officiating/temporary Junior Clerks had been extended upto 31st of January, 1991 as a last chance. Even then the petitioner could not qualify and again the period was extended by different orders upto 31st of May, 1991. Ultimately, the petitioner qualified the test for the first time on 28th of May, 1991. Thereupon his appointment was made regular with effect from 28th of May, 1991. The Regulation No, 9-12(1)(2)(3) of the Board provided two years probationary period. It so happened that on 24th of April, 1993 the Controller of Examination visited M.C. High School, Samanabad Centre during Annual Intermediate Examination of 1993 where he detected an impersonator Muhammad Zaman appearing under Roll No, 2441 for one Saif-ul-Islam son of Muhammad Ashraf. The impersonator made a statement that the petitioner after accepting bribe of Rs,5,000 had issued him Centre Slip. On enquiry the petitioner was found absent from duty whereupon he was suspended. He, in the meantime, applied for medical leave. He was asked to get himself examined from the Medical Superintendent, Faisalabad, but instead of the same he got himself medically examined from another doctor on his own and got the medical certificate countersigned by the Medical Superintendent. An enquiry was conducted and ultimately on the basis of the enquiry report during the probationary period his services were terminated.
4. ' Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner was not associated in the enquiry and he has been condemned unheard. Another argument has been advanced that the impugned action has been taken in a mala fide manner as the respondent-Chairman is inimical towards the petitioner.
5. ' Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has argued that the petitioner was initially appointed on ad hoc basis and had there been any mala fide on the part of the respondent they would not have allowed him so many opportunities to qualify the typing test. He has stated that the petitioner's services have been terminated during the probationary period finding his job not up to the mark. He has also brought to my notice that earlier many a time during his period of services, he was issued warnings quite often and in this enquiry he was found fully implicated. He has further stated in the alternate that the petitioner's services be deemed to have been terminated during the probationary period without any stigma and the observation made in the impugned order be considered expunged.
6. I have considered the contentions. The ground of mala fide has simply been alleged and has not been particularised as required by the Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Rawalpindi v. Saeed Khan and others (PLD 1974 SC 151) which reads as under:-- "Mala fides is one of the most difficult things to prove and the onus is entirely upon the person alleging mala fides to establish it, because there is to start with, a presumption of regularity with regard to all official acts, and until that presumption is rebutted the action cannot be challenged merely upon .a vague allegation of mala fides. As has been pointed out by this Court in case of the Government of West Pakistan v. Begum Agha Abdul Karim Shorish Kashmiri (1), mala fides must be pleaded with particularity, and once one kind of mala fides is alleged, no one should be allowed to adduce proof of any other kind of mala fides nor should any enquiry be launched upon merely on the basis of vague and indefinite allegations, nor should the person alleging mala fides be allowed a roving enquiry into the files of the Government for the purposes of fishing out some kind of a case."
7. ' Even otherwise as reflected from the record the petitioner could not qualify the typing test in spite of many extensions and ultimately cleared the same on 28th of May, 1991 more than one year and four months after his ad hoc appointment. Had there been any mala fides on the part of the respondents they would not have certainly given him any extension. So, in these circumstances it cannot be said that impugned action has been taken in a mala fide manner. The other ground that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard and was not associated in the enquiry is also devoid of any force. It is reflected from the record that initially one Ch. Muzaffar Hussain, Superintendent, Physical Board, was deputed as an Enquiry Officer. However, on the petitioner's application the enquiry was entrusted to Maqbool Ahmad, Superintendent, Audit. I have also noticed that the petitioner was handed over a questionnaire and during the enquiry the Enquiry Officer obtained the answer of the petitioner in this regard. The Enquiry Officer also came to the conclusion that the petitioner left the office on 24th of April, 1993 without permission at 11-30 within a period of one hour of the surprise raid of the Controller, Examination at M.C. High School, Samanabad Centre.
8. I would have remitted the case so as to provide further opportunity to the petitioner to clear his position vis-a-vis his absence from duty and involvement in the impersonation case but since I have noticed that earlier he was administered warnings many a time because of dereliction in the performance of his duties, as such, I desist from doing so particularly when the learned counsel for the respondents has made a categorical offer that the petitioner's services be considered terminated during probationary period without any stigma. In these circumstances, in view of what has been stated above, I do not find it a fit case for interference in the exercise of my Constitutional jurisdiction and dismiss this writ petition with the direction that the petitioner's services would be deemed to have been terminated without any stigma during the probationary period. There shall be no order as to costs in the circumstances of this case.