The facts admitted by the Commissioner of Income-Tax/Wealth-tax, Bahawalpur Zone, Bahawalpur in his parawise comments received under covering Letter No. CIT-BWP/Adorn/Con/9, dated 1-12-1996 from Administrative Officer are that the writ petitioner Masood Mukhtar was appointed as a Naib-Qasid vide No. Com/144, dated 28-8-1994. He was to report for duty on or before 12-9-1994. He joined as such on 7-9-1994 in the office of the Income-tax Officer, Circle-03, Hasilpur. His services were, however, terminated within his probationary period vide Order No. CIT-- BWP/PF/Adorn/3614, dated 2-5-1995 in view of the instructions from the higher authorities. The petitioner has assailed this order through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, contending inter alia that no show-cause notice was issued to him and that, as such, the same was liable to be set aside being illegal, without jurisdiction and lawful authority.
2. In the re-drafted comments dated 13-1-1997 while conceding that no show-cause notice was issued, the respondent has maintained that the appointment was temporary in nature and the probationary period of service had not expired as yet and, as such, no notice was required to be issued or served upon the petitioner before passing the impugned order and for this very reason no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner.
3. I have considered the allegations in this petition and the contentions in the parawise comments and I find that the petitioner has made out a good case for admitting the petition to regular hearing. It is, therefore, admitted to regular hearing.
4. Since a short matter is involved in this petition, both the learned counsel for the parties have been heard at some length.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has again reiterated his allegations as contained in the petition and has urged that there was no adverse report against the petitioner nor any complaint from the public and, as such, there were no good reasons to terminate the services of the petitioner. It is also claimed that petitioner moved an application on 14-9-1995 (Copy Annexure 'C') against the withdrawal and cancellation of appointment order dated 28-8-1994 but the respondent did not take any action thereon.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to convince me as to how the services of the petitioner could be terminated without issuing him a show-cause notice or giving him an opportunity of being heard. The mere fact that he was a temporary employee was not at all sufficient to terminate his services without serving him with a notice. The respondent, therefore, violated the principles of natural justice as has been held in Abdul Jabbar v. Secretary, Government of Punjab and another (1995 PLC (C.S.) 449).
This Constitutional petition is accordingly accepted and the respondent is directed to decide the case afresh in accordance with law after providing the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and serving him with a notice. No order as to costs.