' ABDUL HAMEED KHAN KHATTAK (MEMBER).---This appeal is directed against an order, dated 9-6- 1998, whereby appellant's services were dispensed with.
2. The appellant was appointed as Sub-Inspector (GD) in the Pakistan Rangers on 26-2-1994 (Annexure-A) and he joined that service on 17-3-1994 by way of initial appointment and under Rule 14(2), of Pakistan Rangers Recruitment Rules, 1968, the seniority of the appellant started with effect from the date of his initial appointment i,e, 17-3-1994. All of a sudden on 9-6-1998, he received Annexure-B whereby his services were dispensed with. Feeling aggrieved thereof he preferred departmental appeal on 17-6-1998 (Annexure-C) being mailed through Registered A/D (Annexure CR) but the same having remained unresponded within stipulated period he preferred this appeal on the ground that as he had already completed the required probationary period thus, his services could not be dispensed with on that score and the period of extraordinary leave could not be excluded while computing the length of his service.
3. The respondents contested the appeal by filing parawise comments/objections by taking the stance that appellant remained on extraordinary leave/over stayed leave for a total period of 11 months and 27 days and this probation period as such was to expire on 14-3-1999 and thus, under the relevant rules, his services could be dispensed with during probationary period even without issuance of show-cause notice. It was also contended that before bringing this appeal as the appellant did not prefer any departmental appeal, hence, the present appeal was incompetent.
4. Arguments heard, record perused.
5. Short legal question is involved in this appeal which will not take much time for its resolution.
6. The thrust of arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant was the length of probationary period, as according to him, after coming into force of Civil Servants Act, 1973, the appellant was to be governed by that Act, and the rules made thereunder, and under section 6 of the Act, read with Rule 21 of (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, the probationary period was one year which was extendable by another year and on the expiry of a total period of two years, the appellant was to be deemed as having successfully completed the probationary period on 16-3- 1996 and his services as such could not be terminated on 8-6-1998 by treating him as probationer.
This contention to our mind cannot prevail as it was held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No,1197 of 1997 (M. Nazir v. D.G. Pakistan Rangers Sindh) that Rangers Personnel are civil servants but they shall be governed by Rangers Ordinance, 1959 and rules made thereunder hence we repel the above contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and hold that the appellant's case is falling within the four corners of Pakistan Rangers Recruitment Rules, 1968 and Explanation-II (Annexure-E) which provide a total period of four years (two initial plus two extended years) when computing probationary period and if no orders have been made by the day on which the maximum period of probation expires, the probationer shall be deemed to have been confirmed in his appointment. Thus, when calculated in .The light of above Rules, the maximum of four years' period of probation will be expiring on 16-3-1998 and thereafter, as no orders have been made with regard to extension etc., hence, the appellant shall be deemed to have been confirmed in his appointment since 17-3-1998 whereas the impugned order was passed on 8-6-1998 about three months after confirmation in the appointment of the appellant. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents was that as the appellant absented after sanctioned leave thus, a total period of 11 months and 27 days was shown as extraordinary leave which was to be deducted from the total length of regular service whereafter maximum probation period stood extended up to 18-3-1999. This contention seems to be devoid of force and it was inter alia held in 1999 PLC (C.S.)
79 that period of extraordinary leave could not be excluded while computing length of service which would be deemed to be without break. In this view of the matter, the aforementioned extraordinary leave period was legally required to be counted towards length of service of the appellant, hence, the total maximum period of probation of four years is to be deemed as having expired on 16-3-1998.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that as there was no departmental appeal, the present appeal was incompetent, does not seem to be well-founded as it was categorically given in para. 4 of memo. Of appeal that a departmental appeal was preferred on 17- 6-1998, a copy of which had been placed on the record as Annexure-C, and the copy of registered A/D is Annexure C/1 and at the time of arguments even the original Registered A/D was also placed on the record which is bearing the postal stamp date as 17-6-1998. As per postal A/D, it was addressed to the D.G. Pakistan Rangers (Sindh) Headquarters near Sheikh Zaid Islamic Centre, University Road, Karachi 32 and as the same was not returned as undelivered thus, presumption would be that it reached its destination i,e, the addressee and mere denial made by the respondents in the parawise comments will not put at naught the above documentary proof.
8. There is yet another illegality committed while passing the impugned order as it was categorically given in the last column of Discharge Certificate i,e, the impugned order that he was not fit for government service whereas there is a note given at the fag end of this document that the above words are to be mentioned only if an employee is dismissed but fact of the matter is that as per the impugned order the appellant was not dismissed rather his services were dispensed with allegedly during probationary period for unsatisfactory performance thus, as per their own instructions the respondents were debarred from mentioning the specific words against column of Character as "not fit for government service". Had he been dismissed, only in such an eventuality the above words could be inserted but not in the case of dispensing his services. With regard to alleged unsatisfactory performance, nothing was conveyed to the appellant at any stage thus, he could not be condemned unheard but here the matter is simple as by presuming to be still on probation, his services were straightaway dispensed with but as held above, there was no more probation period available and a wrong calculation of period was made 'by the respondents. Resultantly we hereby hold the impugned order to be illegal, null and void, set aside the same and it is ordered that the respondents shall reinstate the appellant into service from the date of the impugned order with all back benefits. There shall be no order as to costs of the appeal.
9. Copies of the judgment be sent to all the concerned through registered post.