' With reference to his application dated 27-4-1994 in response to an advertisement inviting applications for appointment of Lower Division Clerks in BPS-5 and on the basis of the result of examination held by the Income Tax/Wealth Tax Department, Saleem Nisar petitioner was selected and offered appointment as L.D.C. In BPS-5 in Bahawalpur Zone on a temporary post by means of Letter No,,Con/100, dated 23-8-1994 (Annexure A). According to this letter, the terms and conditions of appointment were as under:--
(i) You will be on probation for a period of one year which may be extended or curtailed either before or after the expiry of one year, as deemed appropriate.
(ii) If, in the opinion of the undersigned your work or conduct is unsatisfactory or shows that you are unlikely to become efficient, the undersigned may discharge/revert you from service on a notice of not less than 14 days and without assigning any reason".
' It was also given in the said letter that the post was purely temporary and conferred no right on him to be confirmed or appointed to a permanent post and the appointment would be considered as an engagement till further orders terminable at a fortnight's notice in writing on either side.
2. It is claimed by the petitioner that he joined the service and performed his duties at different stations of Bahawalpur District but the respondent, without any reason and without any 'notice, withdrew and cancelled his appointment order No,, Con/100 by means of Letter No,, CITBWP/PF- 405/Admn/3606, dated 2-5-1995 (Copy Annexure B). Legality of this order has been assailed by the petitioner through this writ petition under Art.199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 alleging further that there was no adverse report or complaint against the petitioner and as such the order regarding withdrawal of appointment is illegal and without lawful authority. It is also claimed that the petitioner remained filing applications to the respondent from time to time for redressal of his grievance but the respondent took no action thereon.
3. The respondent was directed to file paradise comments which was accordingly done. In reply to para. 4, the Department has submitted as follows:-- "4. Briefly the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 2-5-1995 since petitioner was on probation hence such orders were issued by my predecessor without affording him an opportunity of being heard and without serving any show-cause notice on him as none was required under the terms of appointment. The impugned orders were passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax, Bahawalpur Zone, Bahawalpur. The order terminating the services of the petitioner is self-explanatory which mentions that the appointment orders "are hereby withdrawn and cancelled as per rules in view of instructions from higher authorities."
' After going through these comments and hearing the preliminary arguments, I find that the petitioner has a good case. His petition has, therefore, been admitted to regular hearing.
5. Since a short matter is involved, I have heard the parties at some length. The learned counsel for the petitioner has again taken me through the appointment letter (Annexure A) and letter regarding withdrawal/cancellation of appointment (Annexure B) and has urged that the competent Authority did not consider it worthwhile even to mention in the withdrawal/cancellation order that the work or conduct of the petitioner was unsatisfactory or showed that he was unlikely to become efficient nor was he served with a notice of not less than 14 days as contemplated in the appointment letter which act of the respondent violated the principles of natural justice. It is mentioned in the impugned order (Annexure B) that the appointment orders had been withdrawn and cancelled as per rules in view of instructions from higher authorities'. The learned counsel for the respondent has, however, not been able to show me as to what were the rules and instructions from higher Authorities. The petitioner being on probation for a period of one year, it was incumbent upon the appointing authority/Commissioner, Income Tax to have expressed his opinion as to the unsatisfactory work and conduct of the petitioner and it could only be then after serving him with a notice of not less than 14 days that he could be discharged or his services could be terminated. The impugned order, therefore, cannot sustain being illegal and having been passed without lawful authority and as such is liable to be set aside.
' The result is that I accept this writ 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.