There is no dispute between the parties with regard to the facts leading to the filing of this Constitutional petition. The petitioner was selected and offered appointment as Lower Division Clerk in BPS-5 in the Income Tax Department, Bahawalpur Zone. Bahawalpur on a temporary post by means of Letter No. Com/142, dated 28-8-1994. He was on probation for a period of one year but his services were terminated vide No.CIT/BWP/PF-- 342/Admn/3608, dated 2-5-1995 without affording him an opportunity of being heard and without serving him with any show-cause notice.
The legality of this order has been assailed by the petitioner through this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, alleging in the petition that there was no adverse report against him nor any complaint from the public nor was any disciplinary action ever taken against him by his superiors and, as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside having been passed without lawful authority.
2. After going through the comments of the Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax, Bahawalpur Zone, Bahawalpur in which it is given that no such notice was served on him before his services were terminated. I find that the petitioner has a good case for admitting the petition to regular hearing. The writ petition is, therefore, admitted to regular hearing.
3. Since a short matter is involved in this case, both the parties have been heard at some length.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated his assertions made in the writ petition and has argued that the petitioner moved an application on 14-9-1995 claiming therein that as per. The appointment letter (Annexure 'A') if in the opinion of the appointing authority, the work or conduct of the petitioner was unsatisfactory or it appeared that he was unlikely to become efficient he could be discharged/reverted from service on a notice not less than 14 days without assigning any reason but no such notice was given to the petitioner which at of the respondent violated the principles of natural justice. He has placed reliance on what has been laid down in Abdul Jabbar v.
Secretary, Government of Punjab and another (1995 PLC (C.S.) 449).
5. The learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to meet this contention successfully. I do not find any force in the assertion made in the parawise comments that since the petitioner was a probationer his services could be terminated without affording him an opportunity of being heard and without serving him with any show-cause notice.
6. A reference to the impugned order (Annexure `B') reveals that appointment Order No. Com/142, dated 28-8-1994 in respect of the petitioner were withdrawn and cancelled as per rules in view of instructions from higher authorities. Learned counsel for the respondent has not at all been able to justify the passing of these orders which are obviously violative of the principles of natural justice.
The petitioner being on probation it was incumbent upon the appointing authority/Commissioner.
Income Tax to have expressed his opinion as to the unsatisfactory work or conduct and then to have discharged/reverted him or terminated his services on a notice of not less than 14 days. The impugned order, therefore, cannot sustain and is liable to be set aside.
The result is that I accept this petition, set aside the impugned order and direct the respondent to decide the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law after affording him an opportunity of being heard. No order as to costs.
H.B.T./G-41/L