' SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.---Both these cross-petitions are directed against the judgment and order, dated 28-10-1997 whereby the Federal Service Tribunal accepted the appeal preferred by the respondent Abdul Rashid calling in question the termination of his service.
2. The facts in brief giving rise to the institution of these petitions are that on 30-4-1992 Abdul Rashid was appointed as Sub-Inspector (General Duty) in the Pakistan Rangers, Punjab. On bifurcation of the Rangers, he was allocated to serve in the Pakistan Rangers Sindh and thus he was performing his duties as Company Commander, B-company, 42 Wing. On 30-3-1996, he handed over the charge to Inspector Muhammad Iqbal and returned to the Wing Headquarters. On 7-6-1996 an order was delivered to the respondent whereby his services were dispensed with w,e,f, 30-5-1996 without issuing any show-cuase notice or assigning any reason for such dispensation.
Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed an appeal before the Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and the same was rejected vide order, dated 10-12- 1996, the respondent then invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court, but the said petition was withdrawn and he invoked the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal and vide order impugned the appeal was allowed and the order terminating his service was set aside.
3. The service of the respondent is governed by the Pakistan Rangers Recruitment Rules, 1968 under which one has to serve on probation for a period of 4 years. It was argued before the Tribunal that the period of 4 years was violative of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, under which such probation had been prescribed as 2 years .However, this aspect of the case lost its significance, inasmuch as the petitioner had in fact completed the probation period of 4 years because the termination Of service of the respondent took place on 7-6-1996 whereas he had completed his 4 years' probation on 27-5-1996 having joined the service as Sub-Inspector on 25-5-1992. It is further pertinent to mention that during the probation period, the respondent had been promoted as Inspector on 9- 2-1995 and this would go a long way to show that he performed his services to the satisfaction of the authorities and that is why he was promoted to the next higher rank. In this view of the matter, it was rightly observed by the Tribunal that with his promotion to the next higher rank, he would be deemed to have been confirmed. On account of this situation, we are of the view that the Tribunal rightly held that the termination of the service of the respondent was illegal, inasmuch as he was entitled to a show-cause notice or an inquiry should have preceded before terminating his service.
In this view of the matter, the Federal Service Tribunal rightly accepted the appeal of the respondent and directed his reinstatement in service and intervening period from the date of termination to reinstatement was rightly treated as extraordinary leave without pay. Since no question of public importance has been raised in these petitions, therefore, we do not find any matt and dismiss the same. Leave to appeal is refused in both the petitions,