' MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI, J.----This appeal, by way of leave of the Court, is directed against the order of the High Court passed on 8-7-1998, pronounced on 2'.-7-1998, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant, herein, was dismissed.
2. The precise facts, giving rise to the present appeal, and that the appellant was appointed as Meter-Reader in BPS.5 on 6-2-1995. He absented himself from service and consequently was charge-sheeted by the Executive Engineer (Electricity) Circle, Rawalakot on 22-1-1997, calling upon him as to why he had been absent from the duty since 28-10-1996. The appellant, herein filed a medical certificate in support of his plea of illness which, on the queries made from the concerned authorities, was found by the Executive Engineer to be a forged one. Consequently, the Superintending Engineer, who is Authority of the appellant, removed the appellant from service on the ground that he not only remained absent from service but subsequently filed his nomination on papers for contesting the elections of Local Bodies; and that he also produced a forged medical certificate. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court on the ground that the inquiry was not conducted against the appellant according to the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter shall be called the Rules). The High Court dismissed the writ petition mainly on the ground that in view of the written statement filed by the respondents, the allegations against the appellant are proved because no replica was filed controverting the grounds narrated in the written statement.
3. It has been vehemently contended by Sardar Muhammad Sayab Khalid, the learned counsel for the appellant, that the judgment of the High Court is not sustainable because the findings has been given that inquiry against the appellant was conducted according to the Rules of 1977. He has particularly stressed that the proceedings of misconduct can be initiated only at the instance of an Authority who was Superintending Engineer in the instant case but the same were initiated by the Executive Engineer who was only an authorised officer of the appellant. Similarly the violation of Rule 6 of the Rules has been made basis for challenging the impugned order of the High Court. The learned counsel contended that the Authority issuing the show-cause notice was not competent as it was not authorised by the Authority to do so. He further argued that the allegations on account of which the appellant has been removed from service do not find place in the charge- sheet issued against the appellant on account of which he has been condemned unheard. The learned counsel further emphasised that no inquiry was conducted and the appellant was never heard personally by the authorised officer before the issuance of the impugned order. He refuted the allegations that the appellant ever filed a forged and fabricated medical certificate or that he stood as a candidate for the elections of Local Bodies.
4. Raja Shiraz Kayam, the learned Advocate-General, appearing on behalf of respondents, in reply argued that the appellant deliberately absented himself from the duty and did not resume the same despite the repeated notice issued to him. He also referred to a letter, dated 12-1-1997 from C.O. C.M.H., Rawalakot addressed to S.E., Electricity, Rawalakot disclosing that the medical certificate produced by the appellant before the department has not been found to be issued by the hospital and is fabricated and forged one. It is also alleged that the seal of the medical certificate is also forged. The learned counsel referred to the notification, dated 31-10-1996 which bears the signatures of the appellant to be the candidate for the elections of Local Council from Tain Ward, District Rawalakot.
5. After hearing the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the relevant rules, it may be stated that under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, the S.E., Electricity is the Authority for Grades 5 to 7 while X.E.N. Is the authorised officer. The charge-sheet was served upon the appellant on 22-1-1997 by the authorised officer i,e, X.E.N. Under the direction of the Authority on 16.1-1997, i,e, the S.E., Electricity, Rawalakot who is the Authority in the case of the appellant, herein. The Authority removed the appellant from the service on the recommendations of X.E.N. The authorised officer. Therefore, in our view the requirements of relevant Rules are substantially complied with.
6. The list of allegations provided to the appellant by the X.E.N., Electricity, Operation Division the only allegation against the appellant was that he remained absent from his duties from 28-10-1996 to 28-12-1996 and in order to explain this unlawful act the appellant furnished a medical certificate issued from C.M.H., Rawalakot which was verified later on that the same was not issued from C.M.H., Rawalakot. Therefore, the certificate produced was fake and fictitious as such why the appellant should not be proceeded against. On the recommendation of XEN..., the Superintending Engineer, Electricity, Circle Rawalakot vide his order Annexure 'E' not only terminated the appellant's services on the basis that the fictitious certificate was produced by him to explain the period of his illness during which he remained absent from service but also on the ground that being Government servant in the year 1996, local bodies scheduled elections which were later on postponed the appellant filed his nomination papers. As a result of the abovesaid allegations the services of the appellant were terminated vide order of Superintending Engineer, Electricity, Rawalakot. Before terminating services of the appellant the reply was submitted by the appellant which was not found satisfactory by the competent authority. On the writ petition filed by the appellant against his termination order the point before the learned Judge was raised that one of the allegations against the appellant was that he filed nomination papers being a Government employee in the local bodies elections scheduled to be held which were ultimately postponed. All the same the learned Judge in his finding vide the impugned judgment did not advert to this point so it could safely be said that the appellant's service was terminated on the basis of satisfactory proof of the allegation that he remained absent from his duties without any legal justification and by submitting a forged medical certificate which did not appear to have been issued from C.M.H., Rawalakot. The other point taken by the learned Judge in the High Court is that the appellant was on probationary period for one year as per his order of appointing but the learned Judge did not accept the said point and Rule 7 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977 clearly stipulates that a person appointed to a post or grade against a substantive vacancy shall be. On probation for two years if appointed by initial recruitment. It was further observed by the learned Judge that the appellant has been appointed by initial recruitment hence irrespective of what is entered in his order of appointment he shall be deemed to be on probation for two years in view of Rule 7 as indicated above. Under section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1976 the services of a civil servant can be terminated without notice during the initial or extended period of his probation. Therefore, it was held by the learned Judge that facts alleged in the written statement irrespective of the fact that due proceedings under the relevant Efficiency and Discipline Rules have been conducted against the appellant were sufficient for the termination of services of the appellant during the period of his probation without notice.
7. However, we do not agree with the above findings of the learned Judge in the High Court as in the case of a civil servant on probation he could have been removed from the service. Therefore, we convert the order of appellant's termination into that of removal from service. The appellant- petitioner even otherwise because of his conduct was not entitled to any relief.
' The appeal having no merit in it therefore stands dismissed.