' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, C J.---Through this common judgment we intend to dispose of the above appeals/petitions for leave to appeal, which have arisen out of the judgment dated 3-10-1997 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal).
2. Brief facts are that the appellants/petitioners herein were inducted into service on different dates during the year 1996 in Intelligence Bureau in different pay scales i,e, as Assistant Sub-Inspectors, Sub-Inspectors, Inspectors and Assistant Directors. Their services were terminated during the currency of probationary period without assigning any reason.
3. The appellants/petitioners, being aggrieved with their termination of services filed separate appeals before the Tribunal, which were dismissed through the impugned consolidated judgment, inter alia, for the following reasons:-- "(i) That the above posts were created for a period of one year;
(ii) that the appointments were made not on the basis of merit but on the recommendations of the Ministers and other Government functionaries en bloc;
(iii) that since the appellants/petitioners' services were terminated during probationary period, they had no justiciable grievance to agitate before this Court in view of the judgments of this Court inter alia in the case of Syed Tathir Hussain Shirazi v. The Governor of the Punjab and others (1990 SCM R 1510), in the case of Amir Ahmed v. Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and another (1993 SCM R 114) and in the case of Munawar Khan v. Niaz Muhammad and 7 others (1993 SCM R 1287)."
4. Leave to appeal was granted.By this Court in different bunches of petitions in the following terms:
(i) Whether the petitioners who were inducted as Assistant Directors in the I.B. Were appointed against permanent posts or against temporary posts created for a period of one year (i,e, the petitioners in Civil Petitions Nos.1330, 1334, 1335, 1342, 1328, 1329, 1336, 1344 and 1345 of 1997)?
(ii) Whether at the time of termination of services of the Assistant Directors on the ground that they were on probation, there existed 79 vacancies of permanent Assistant Directors or any, if so, what is its effect?
(iii) -What is the effect of the Public Notice published in the newspapers in which it was not disclosed that the above posts were temporary?
(iv) Whether the petitioners who were inducted as Assistant Sub-Inspectors, Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors were appointed against temporary posts and if so, what is its effect?
(v) Whether any permanent vacancies existed at the time the termination notice was served in the posts of Assistant Sub-Inspectors, Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors, if so, what is its effect?
(vi) What is the effect of the words "on regular basis" used in some of the appointment notifications?
(vii) Whether the petitioners were entitled to a show-cause notice before passing of the termination orders in terms of section 11(1) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
(viii) Whether the termination orders should have contained the reasons for termination of services of the petitioners in view of section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (incorporated by Act XI of 1997 with effect from 2-6-1997)." Hafiz S.A. Rehman, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court appearing on behalf of Abdul Hameed-appellant in Civil Appeal No,1585 of 1997 vehemently argued that services of his client could not be terminated on the strength of section 11 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, inasmuch as, he was holding permanent lien in his parent department and ought to have been repatriated, therefore, no question of termination from service arose even if he had consented to forego his lien in his parent department i,e, Quetta Development Authority. In support of his plea he relied on Mazhar Ali v. Federation of Pakistan (1992 SCM R 435), wherein it was observed: "The law applicable to such an admitted position on facts finds mention in the Rules 3.13 to 3.17 of the Civil Services Rules (Punjab), Volume I, and Fundamental Rules Nos.13, 14 and 14-A. According to these, the lien of the permanent civil servants cannot be terminated, even with their consent. It can be terminated only when the civil servant is confirmed against some other permanent post..."
6 Hafiz S.A. Rehman next contended that in any case his client was entitled to show-cause notice, in that, the termination order was passed without assigning any reason and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him before terminating his services. In support of his plea, he placed reliance on the following unreported judgments of this Court, C.Ps. Nos.979 to 1012 of 2000.
' In the above cases, the Tribunal, took the view that termination of the employee was wholly arbitrary. This Court declined to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal as no substantial question of law of public importance was involved in those petitions. Here, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the impugned termination from service was a termination simpliciter and was made during the probationary period. . ' C.P. No,1062 of 1998. .
' In this case, the Tribunal set aside the orders of termination from service of employees of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, inter alia on the ground that the termination order was passed without any show-cause notice, inquiry or charge-sheet. This Court upheld the order of the Tribunal setting aside the order of termination from service of the employee in view' of violation of principles of audi alteram portent. This case is also distinguishable, as services of the employees involved therein were not terminated during probationary period . ' C.P. No,573 of 2000..
' In the above case, the Tribunal set aside the termination order of the employee and remanded the case to the Departmental Authority for conducting a detailed probe on the lines suggested in the impugned order therein. This again was not a case of a probationer and, therefore, distinguishable, ex facie. . ' C.As. Nos.330 to 337, 436 and 1999. .
' In these cases. The Tribunal reinstated into service certain employees of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC). The appeals filed by PIAC against the said order were dismissed by this Court on the ground that the services of the employees were terminated without disclosing reason, without issuing show-cause notices and without providing them an opportunity of being heard.
These cases too are distinguishable, as the services of the reinstated employees were not terminated during their probationary period.
7. Hafiz S.A. Rehman next argued that the impugned judgment is based on erroneous assumption that his client was a political appointee. At this stage, Mr. K.M.A. Samdani, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondent-department made a statement at the Bar that he is not defending the findings of the Tribunal to the effect that the appellants/petitioners were appointed under political pressure. The main thrust of his arguments would be that the services of the appellants/petitioners were terminated within the probationary period of their appointments, therefore, not liable to be interfered with in terms' of section 11 (ibid).
8. Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing on behalf of, appellants in Civil Appeals Nos.1586 to 1591 of 1997, 1595 to 1598, 1600 to 1602, 1605, 1610, 1611 of 1997 and Civil Appeals Nos.678 and 679 of 1998 argued that the respondent-department cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold in the same breath by taking contradictory pleas, inasmuch as, reasons had not been assigned, in the orders of termination from services of the appellants but when the appeals ere filed before the Tribunal the respondent-department stigmatized the employees by alleging that their appointments were irregular and politically motivated. He further contended that the termination orders were not made by a competent authority but it was the command performance of the then Caretaker Government, therefore, ineffective in law. It was finally contended that the impugned orders of termination from service were violative of the principle of audi alteram partem.
9. Khawaja Muhammad Farooq, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court appearing on behalf of the appellants in Civil Appeals Nos.1599, 1603 and 1604 of 1997 adopted the submissions made by Hafiz S.A.Rehman and Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi and argued that the Government took the plea before the Tribunal that the summary' for the abolition of the posts sent to the then Prime Minister was approved and posts were abolished with the result that the Tribunal converted the termination of services from section 11(1) to section 11(2) (ibid) directing the respondent-department to pay 14 days' salary in lieu of notice. It was next contended that the appellants/petitioners have not been afforded adequate opportunity to defend their cases, as material placed on record was not brought to their notice nor they were enabled to rebut the same. Further, the respondent- department was wrong in contending that these posts were, temporary in nature, in that, the same were being advertised since 1990 and the last advertisement came about in March, 1995.
According to him, although advertisements were published in-between yet no appointments were made. The precise submission was that neither the advertisements referred to above nor the letters of appointment issued to the employees indicated that 'the posts were temporary in nature.
It was next argued that it was a case of discrimination, in that, the summary sent to the then Prime Minister was for abolition of 120 posts of Assistant Directors and 25 posts of Deputy Directors. This summary was approved in its entirety but the posts of Deputy Directors were not abolished and only Assistant Directors' posts were abolished by the respondent-department. Furthermore, it was contended that six persons are working in the respondent-department as ad hoc employees but their services were not terminated and there are six other persons whose services had been borrowed from other departments and, they have also not been repatriated to their respective parent departments.
10. Mr. Jan Muhammad, learned Advocate-on-Record appearing on behalf of appellant in Civil Appeal No,669 of 1998 adopted the arguments of Khawaja Muhammad Farooq.
11. Mr. Talat Farooq Sheikh, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing on behalf-of appellants in Civil Appeals Nos.1612, 1614 to 1624 of 1997 adopted the arguments of Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi and Hafiz S.A. Rehman. However, he further argued that the question of legal expectancy of confirmation should have been considered by the Tribunal. Besides, it was contended that after insertion of section 24-A in the General Clauses Act, 1897, it was mandatory for the authority to give reasons for passing the impugned termination orders.
12. Mr. Shehenshah Hussain, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the appellants in Civil Appeals Nos.562 and 563 of 1998 reiterated the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for other appellants/petitioners.
13. Chaudhary Naseer Ahmed, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing on behalf of the appellant in Civil Appeal No,689 of 1998 also adopted the arguments of the learned counsel who preceded him. He, however, added that the Tribunal did not apply its independent mind to the facts of the case of his client.
14. M/s. Javed A. Khan and Rana Abdur Rahim, also adopted the arguments of the learned counsel who preceded them.
15. Mr. M. Sardar Khan, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court who appeared on behalf of the appellant in Civil Appeal No,2009 of 1998, while adopting the arguments of Khawaja Muhammad Farooq, added that his client was not appointed under any political pressure; he is still in service and working as Assistant Director having been granted interim relief by this Court and that throwing him out at this stage would be highly unjust.
16. Mr. Saeedur Rehman Farrukh, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the appellant in Civil Appeal No,822 of 1998 also adopted the arguments addressed by the learned counsel representing other appellants/petitioners. He added that grave injustice had been done to his client, as he had not been allowed to go back to his original post in spite of the fact that he was holding permanent lien in his parent department.
17. Mr. Anwar H. Mir, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing on behalf of the appellants in Civil Appeals Nos.674, 676, 677 and 691 of 1998 also adopted the arguments of his predecessors.
18. Mr. Muhammad Ikram Chaudhry, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the appellants in Civil Appeals Nos.1609 of 1997, 692 to 695 of 1998 reiterated the submissions made by the other learned counsel to the effect that the appointments were not made on political recommendations and in any case the employees were condemned unheard. Reliance was placed on Pakistan v. Public at Large (PLD 1987 SC 304) to contend that the impugned action against him cannot be sustained.
20. Mr. M.S. Khattak, learned Advocate-on-Rxord appearing for the appellant in Civil Appeal No,680 of 1998 and Civil Petition No,1369 of 2000 also adopted the arguments addressed at the Bar by other learned counsel. However, to meet the objection that his appeal as well as petition are barred by time, he placed reliance on Mahreen Zaibun Nisa v. Land Commissioner, Multan (PLD 1975 SC 397), to contend that since his case also involves the same questions of law and facts which, in any case, are to be decided by this Court in other connected cases, delay in both the above cases may be condoned. Shah Abdur Rashid, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing on behalf of the appellant in Civil Appeal No, 670 of 1998 argued that before induction and appointment as Assistant Director on regular basis his client was already serving in the respondent-department and held a permanent lien against his former post, therefore, a show-cause notice was required to be served upon him as it was not a termination from service simpliciter and that the power vested in the competent authority under section 11(1) (ibid) was not exercised judicially but arbitrarily and was, in fact, a colourable exercise of power. He further argued that an order under section 11(1)
(ibid) can be passed only if the conduct of the employee is not satisfactory; that the Tribunal being conscious that the termination from service was improper had converted the same from section 11(1) to section 11(2) (ibid) and that a duly sanctioned post cannot be abolished without concurrence of the Finance Division.
21. Mr. K.M.A. Samdani, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing on behalf of the respondent- department vehemently argued that all the appellants/petitioners were on probation for a period of one year and their services were terminated during the currency of the said period without any show-cause notice, in that, such a notice was expressly excluded by section 11(1) (ibid). He further submitted that the provisions of section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 were not attracted as the same had come into force on 2-6-1997 whereas the orders terminating the services of the appellants/petitioners were passed before the said date. It was next submitted that although the rights of those having lien against a post in their respective parent departments were protected in their orders of termination yet the question of lien could not be blown out of proportion in these matters as none of the appellants/petitioners was appointed by transfer and their appointments were "initial" within the meanings of section 11 (ibid). Adverting to the question of discrimination, Mr. Samdani took the stance that such a plea was not available to the appellants/petitioners as services of all of them were terminated during their probationary period. On Court's query, he submitted that though some posts were abolished but services of those employees, who were working on probation against permanent posts, were also terminated during the probationary period. He concluded his arguments by submitting that none of the appellants/petitioners was put under the vestige of a stigma in any manner and the apprehension of some of them that they were stigmatized and as such a show-cause notice was necessary, was more imaginary than real. The appellants/petitioners ' can participate in the tests and processes pursuant to current advertisement in regard to the posts against which they were serving in the past. It was also contended that the case of his clients throughout was that being a matter of termination of services simpliciter, assigning of reasons or issuance of show- cause notices was not required and that if the Tribunal has converted the termination from subsection (1) to subsection (2) of Section 11 (ibid), his clients had no objection to the payment of 14 days' salary to the appellants/petitioners.
Mr. K.M.A. Samdani submitted a Chart showing the list of appeals/petitions filed by the appellants/petitioners against their termination from services pursuant to the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. For facility of reference the above Chart is reproduced below:-- .LIST OF PETITIONS FILED BY THE IB TF,RMINAYEb EMPLOYEES IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN.AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF F.S.T. DATED 03-10-1997. {{TABLE}} S. NO CP NO/CA NO. NAME OF PETITIONER S/APPEAL NO OF EST. DES G REC OMM END ATIO NS MODE OF APPL1CAT ION EDI : APPOI NT AIENT DATE/MODE OF OF TERM.
REM RKS C'P- 1297,97 Relict Sneed Kben A.D. - Undated. Without mentioning MSc 25-08.96 . 5-02-9' Nor aophod agaitit! The ad or AD.
CA- 1582/97 418(L)/97 411y addressee.
WIth011l ReguLo 1995 stEn.
2. CP- Ahmed A.D. - Throogh M Sc 25-08-96 15-02-97 - 1299/97 CA- Fornaleet P 0.Box according to ad. Regular 1584/97 417(LIPS7
3. CP- 1301/97 CA- (514/97 M. Hissers Akins 473 L 'I k.S.1 JOG 1A) Through P.O.Bou witluno reference of any ad. 11-03-96 Adhoc 7-02-97 Appointed by JDO (A)
Witilool. test. d. CP- 1304/97 Abdul FInirnd Insp. Addressed to DO 18, dated M.A. 3 )6-96 18.02-97 Appeared Ads ten but selected CA- 1595/97 Ski Amir %eh Khontalc 21.12-95 Regular Inspector a t red for - 09(0V97 Against the arl of Mc 95 for B-I8. AD Scheele BPS-18 apaitst the ad appeared in Dec.
1995 S. CP- 1310/97 CA- 1586/97 Faisal Ritz 266(LE97 Insp. JOG( A) Without addresses. undated. B.A. 02-07.96 Regular (Direct) 17-02-97 Coauthor'sedly appointed by irxim A) without test. . Cp- 1311/97 CA- 1587/97 Mute nrmseJ Shafa(ne 268(L)097 Insp. JOG( ft.) Without addressee. Post and sign. . 21-10-96 Regular (Direct) 17-02-97 l nalithoriserily appointed by JDO(A) without lest.
7. CP- 1312/97 CA- tette/97 Feast Abase Shah 271(L)/97 Insp. 10(7( A) Undated, without addressee. Reference of ad not B. 6 22-10-96 Adhoc 17-02-97 Unauthoriredify appointed by .106(A1 without mentioned. Test x ( P. Allow Nadeem Imp PM Without B A. 30-06.96 18-02-97 PM Sectt.
1313/97 Senn addressee. Recommen post epplied for. .
Regular AD dee 158907 27511_107 reference of ad. Scheme 9 (.1' fIlturshid S I PM WII110111 B A.
10.07-97 26-02-97 PM Sect,.
131-1 97 CA- Ahmed Scott. Addressee, post, applied for. Regular AD Recommen dee.
1590,97 2180:1/97 reference of ad Scheme Ill. ('P- Irian Nome Imp 11x.21 Without D.A. 16-07-97 17-02-97 Unsuthorts- 1315/97 Warinch A) addressee, post applied of Regular (Direct) edly appointed by JDO(A)
159! 97 265(1).97 ad without test. II. ( I"- Roof Illisson A.D. Undated M A 25-08.96 15.02-97 Not through 111697 purtshi addressed to 1)(3 111 Regular P.O. Butt against the CA- ed.
1592/97 513(1).97
12. CP- Zulgarnain A.D. According nts, 25-011-96 15-02-97 1317/97 Sandi to au of A D. Regular CA- 1593/97 609(,L1/97 13 CP. Mellowed A D. Addressed M.A. 25-08.96 15.02-97 Not through 1118/)7 Alain to 31)(3. P.O. Box Punjab Regular !Against the CA- ad.
159.697 514j1197
74. Cl'- Dinar Mouth A.D .According B.F. 25-08-96 15-02.97 1327.97 to ad of (Eke A I) / Regular CA. 620(k197 1596/97 _ ('P- Ilium I.:Web A.D. According ft Sc 25-08-96 11-02-97 Allowed to 1327/97 to ad of A.D. Regular appear in the test on CA- 620f R1:'97 ' providing 1196/97 bio data only, being ft.S0 not eligible - CF M. Igbal A.D. AO :0111111V (I Sc 25-08.96.
15.02.97 1.128/97 Mimi to ad of March 95. Regular CA- 1507/97 6611(141/97 CF- Jevaid khan A.G. No M.A. 25-08.96 15-02.97 Allowed to 1329/97 application, only Rio- appear in the test on CA- Data Regtf.Sr providing 1591117 671(8)/97 evadable bio data OnlY.
18 CP- Shark' Zainan A 'through B A 25-08.96 15-02.97 IB 1310/97 .4noari .IDO(A) on 10-12-95 Regular employees. Bemg BA CA- eller lest not eligible.
1599,97 427(1407 , date.
19. CP. " (Adam limp Addressed II. A. 30-08-96 18.02-97 Appeared 1331'97 Maim to IX) IR, for post of in the AD's hut, but CA AD. Without Regular AD selected as 1600/97 24783/97 any ref of ad Scheme 4 Inspector.
CP 1332,97 CA 1602/97 Zahid Islam 247(L4/97 Insp. PM Seen List Addressed to PM. Without mentioning any post. Ref of ad M A 30.08.96 Regular AD Scheme 18-02.97 I'M Seen Recommen ded CP. Munawar A.D. Undated. Ti A 30-08-96 18-02.97 PM Saco 1333/97 Ahmed Gondol without addresiee. . Recommen ded.
CA. 270(L)/97 post applied Regular AD 1602/97 for any ref of ad. ' Scheme ' CP- Safdar Shah A.D. - According M.A.
27.08-96 15-02.97 LH 1334/97 to ad of employee Mach 95 Regular CA- 7711(R)/97 1603/97 CP. Ashiq Hussain A.D. Aciording MA 25-07.96 15-112.97 IR 1335/97 to ad of AD. Employee Regular CA 579(R)97 1605,95 rP Manionr , A.D. No, 8 li 26.0E96 17.02.97 Allowed to 1336/97 Ahmed application, Only Rio. Regular appear so the test Olt CA Data tlitec pro. Iding 1605/97 66600/97 evailehle Not applied spinet the ad. 1 Inodsts only CP- Muheminad Insp. - Updated, for M.A.
30.06-96 18-02.97 Ag(eared 1340/97 Ries 0.17 without ref. Regular AD nt AD's last, hut CA. Of ad - Scheme selected as 1616/97 2238-1/97 itoseiloL 26, CP. Abdul Reitman Insp. For 0.17, M 30-06.96 do - Appeared (341/97 Akhtar +stilton'. Rer of any ad. Si; Reinder AD ', so Al) tee but CA Scheme *elected as (607/97 223414/97 In issivr.
27 was Noted A.D. CP- According M A.
27.00.96 302.97 1342/97 Shahaed to ad of AO Regular CA 1.60//97 CP. Seitilt Sultan A.D. AccOrdinti MSc 15-98-96 13-02.97 1343/97 to ed or AD.
Reinder CM 555(11/97 1609/97 eP Mod A.D. No M.A. 25-9146 15.02.97 Alli,eitil to "
1344/97 beekm004 Mupltal application. Only No- ' appear to the test on CA- dawn Regular provIding 1610/97 424(R)417 availehle.
Not applied against the ad. Bin data only A. 04 RON 90,414111 A.D. Addraieed le Se 2549146 15402.97 MNA 1345/97 Ishim lo PM without ref (Eng RcPnlar recornownd cc CA- of ad pool 1)
161097 413(10/97 ill 20.09-93 after clueing tkil Cl'- 1148/97 CA- 1312/97 Muhammad Aft! Adams 2461(1)/97 hap PM Seen List. For 9.17 without ref deny id. M Sc ' 30.06- Regular AI)
Scheme III.02-97 PM Seca recommend ee. Being B.Si: not eligible to appear in test of Al).
CP.
1339/97 CA- Abdul Hamad Insp. According to id or A.D. M.Sc 30-06-97 Regular AD 18-02-97 Appeared in AD's test but selected is 1313497 S/o Abdul Scheme Inspector Wahid 3116(R)t97 CP- Masood S.I. Undated. 13 A 07-09-96 26-02-97 1362/97 Alstned Khan without addressee Adhoc CA- and post 1614197 336(1)497 :applied for.
CP. Sadao.. Ali 194P Undated. B.A. 07-07-96 17-02-97 PM Seen 136197 Dope without addresses Adhoc Recommen dee.
CA- and post 1615/97 337(11'97 applied for.
Cl'- Syed ;bier (rap Undated. B.A. 01-07.96 17-02-97 Appeared 1364/97 Hussain addressed to PM Sr the Regular AD in AD's lest but selected CA- post of AD. Scheme as 1617/97 240 L /97 Inspector.
CP M. Amir Khan Insp. )DG( Undated. B.A. 22-04-96 17-02-97 Unauthoris- 1.363f77 A) addressed to 0618 Adhoc idly appointed CA- 345(1)/97 by JOG (A)
1617197 without test.
CP- Al. I ()ay= hue: JOG Undated, B.A. 06-03.-96 117-02-97 Unauthoris- 1 Khan . 4/0 sddresse.d tit DU (0 . Adhoc edly appointed CA- by JOG !At 1611097 . Without test. Al. t CP- Imams Miner S 4- - Undated BA 21-07-96 26-02-97 Appeared 1167/97 without - addressee. In AD's test but selected CA- 262)1(97 post applied Regular AD as Si.
1619/97 - " for and lips Scheme '
CP- Shah Zeman loop JOG Undated. P-A. 05-0816 17-02-97 LInatithoris- 1369/97 Shah ' (Al addressed to DG IN. Adhoc edit' appointed CA- by JDG (A)
1.6J.0/97 342(1)/97 without test.
CP- Muhersinad Insp Appro Undated, B.A A 3.06-96 17-02.97 4inauthorts- 1369/97 Munk Ahmed ved by JOG addressed to DRIB. Adhoc edty appointed CA- 1A). By 10G (A) )621/97 339(1)197 Pot-ore mende d by without test Ran M.
Maths In Khan MNA CP- 1370/97 Minn Ahmed Rao lisp Apron a by .IDG Undated. Addressed to 06-111. B.A 04-09.96 Adieu; 17-0247 Ut(atithorIS. edly appointed CA- IA) by 1DO 431 1622/97 289(L1/97 4,11110:11 test.
CP- Muhammad Insp. Appsp Undated B.A 06.03-46 17-92-97 Unauthons- 1177/97 Abid sad by JOG addressed to DG 19. Idly so:molted CA- IA) by 1141 (A)
1623/97 1090497 without IVA.
CP- Waseem insp Appro Undated, B.A. 20-08-96 17.02-9 Unsuthoris- 1378/97 Gonda! Met by 1DG addressed to DGIB. 0,(1. Appointed CA- IA) by MG IA1 1624/97 37511497 . %idmmi.
CP- Mumtaz ul A.S.i Appro Undated, B.A.
26.06-96 (7 2- 7 Leauthoss 1379/97 Hassan sad by JOG ...Oboist addressee Mhos edty. Appointed CA- (A) sad post by 106 LA)
1626/97 applied for. Without test CP- M. Niacin According MSc 08-08.96 1902-97 Appeared 1384/97 Javaid to ad of AD. Regular AD asi All's Ie.; bileseiectrd CA- Scheme as 1626/97 416fR 97 -czar.
CP Muhammad Insp. Accordingly M.Sc -96 i8.O2-97 Appeared 1386;97 Asim to ad of AD. In AD's test Regulus AD but selected CA- 1627/97 38502197 . Scheme as - Itls,csor.
47. CP- Niger Alunad Insp. No B.Sc. 10-06.96 ! 8-02-97 Atlowcri to 1387/97 . Applicazion, only Btu- Repots, AD arts,^5 In the dead 0,1 CA- 80(P)/97 Data Scheme p uvtrling 1628/97 a vaolatIls.. Only bk.., dais.
48 CP- Aseduliah Jan Insp. Pty Without M A. 30-4)6.96 18-07.9 I Se 4I.
138897 S'L7 eidressee. VS( applied Regular AD RiscOminco dce CA- 111(P)/97 us, for and sign. Scheme 1529/97
49. CP- .Syed Insp. - Addressed M A 03.07-96 18-02.97 Appeased 1389/97 Iftikhanidding to Dircsor . 1B, undated Reputes AD in AD's test but selected CA- not Scheme as 1630/97 864N/97 mentioned the post Inspector. lied for CP- Slushed . Insp. PM Undated. - B.Sc 01-07-96 18-02-97 Appeared 1390/97 Arshed Sects List withous sign. Regular AD in AD's test - but selected CA- addressee Scheme as 1631/97 88(P)/97 sed MO mentioned . The post for. Inspector!
CP- Malta, Insp. PM Undated, B.Sc 01.07-96 18-02-97 PM Sects 139097 &shad Seen List withoutsign. _ Recommen dee, No CA- addressee Regular AD eligible 1631/97 811(P)/97 and 8.114 mentioned Scheme being B.Sc the post VOW fOr.
St. CP- Auranstaab Imp According B.E.
30.06.96 18.0247 App tired 1391/97 Aftidi to ad of AD I Ekc 1 Resnik'. AD in the Ali' test but CA- Scheme selected as 1632/97 8 P)/97 Inspects's CP- Shahid Illyas hum Undated. 41 A.
02.07-96 18.02.97 Appeared 139)/97 applied for 0.17 Regular Al) in the AD's test but CA- Scheme selected as 1633,97 90(P)/97 Inspector.
Not eligible to appear in the teat rot 1317 as per ad being greduale CP Jawed' S.I. PM Witham .
13.A 30-0646 06.03-97 PM Seen 1402/97 Mamoor Seen . List. Addressee. Post mid Regular Al) Recommen dee.
CA. Sap Scheme 665/94 510(R)/97 5.4. CP. Muhammad Imp Without R A 27417.96 18.02-97 Appeared 1404/97 Khalid Khurshid addressee post applied Kepler Al) in AD's test but selected .
CA. Kw Scheme as 66794 420(L),97 I Inspector.
55. CP-55/91 Muhammad /amid losp Addressed m OITIVIIK M.A 10-06-96 184247 Appeared MOW AtTs CA. Ill. Reinder AD test and 681,91 346411/97 Scheme selected as Inspector. .1 56, CP-56A$ Smiled Asir Min A S.I JOG (Al Addressed tolD(itAl B.:\ 11143-96 27-02.97 Unauthorts edly CA- Adluw appointed 612/911 1117113/97 by JOG IA) without lest. cr49/96 Abdul Rae Tskir loop JOG
(A) Addressed to JUG (A). LI A 13-0696 17.02.97 Utiouthoi issilly CA Mhos: appointed 6155/90 377(1),47 by JOG (Al without test. ...1 CP.57911 Khaltd /avoid Imp Undated. MS,: 13-06.90 18-02.97 Appeared addressed to .1 In the AD'S CA.
22141..)97 1)iroctur 111 . Kepler AD test hot 6113911 without ref to ad. Scheme selected as Wipeout CP.S11/911 Muhammad Alan Ahmed A.S.! JOG IA) Addressed ' to /DO IA). F A 18.03-96 27-02-97 Unauthoris. Oily CA. Adhoc appointed 6114/911 31511(L1197 ' by JOG (A) without test.
CP.609$ Tahoe Mobniond . Imp. Wahoul addresses MSc 30416.96 111.02-97 Appeared in dm MD's CA Khan post and rep', Regular Al) mei and 616191 39041.1 97 or ad Schema , selected as Inspector
61. CP Slakudul Cons JOG Addressed Man 19.011-96 28.02-97 Unauthons.
1401191 Han.. Table (A) to DOG undated. ' 0 Adhoc edh, appointed CA. Without of by /DO (A)
664/96 330(1)/63 to any ed. Without tom.
CP.04/98 CA- 671/911 Oholam Muhyouddin Al) 370(Ry97 'According to ad MA 25.08-96 Repular 15.0247 CP-80/98 CA- 690/98 Jehmilhib Ali 425(12)/97 A.D. According to ad. M.Sc 25-08-96 Regular 15-02-97 - 64, .CP-79/98 CA.
689/98 Muhammad Ali 387( R)/97 . Al) PM Seen List. No, application. Only Bin- data ti available. Not applied against the ad of AD.
1995. B.A. 25011.96 Regular 15.0247 Allowed to appear in the test on providing bio data only.
63. CP41/98 CA- 691/98 lftikhar. Bsqir 618(R)/97 A.D Not through P.O. Boy M.A. 25-0846 Regular 13-02.97 Not through P.O. Boa.
CP-21/98 CA. '
673/98 Fareedon Akram Sheikh 617(R)/97 A.D Not through P.O. Boa M.Sc 2548-96 Regular 15-02.97 do CP-22/98 CA 675/98 M. Timone Hussain 481 Iti/97 Al) According to ad , M.Sc 25-08.96 Regular 15.02-97 CP- 168)98 CA.
696/98 Shahid lqbal 242111/97 Map No application M.A. 30-06-96 .
Regular Al)
Schema 18-0247 Appeared in the AD's ten and selected ss Inspector.
CP24/98 CA- 676/98 . Wailun Alt Khan 581(12)/97 kll , Wert or Minim Or. According - to ad. M.Sc 2541846 Reenter 18-0247 Recommen ded by Naseer ullah Khan Bober.
CP.23/98 CA- - 671/911 Muhammad Zafar lqbal 6 I 5.(R1/97 A.D Addressed to IX/ 1B, without mentioning the post applied for. M.
Com 25-08-96 Regular 18-02-97 Not applied according to ad.
CP10/98 CA.
677/98 M. Lthar Ahmed 388(R)/97 /it.S.1- 11X1
(A) Without addressee. Dated 9a1;..96, ref of ad tun given. F.A.
26.0646 Adhoc 19-02-97 Appointed by JD( (A) without test/intervie le
12. CP-414- K/97 CA- Muhammad MateenSeJid 171(1)197' Insp. Without application. Only Bin. Data submitteddmad 14. 0395. B.E. ((Inc 1 3946.96 18.02-97 Appeared in the .AD's test. But selected 46 Inspector.
73. CP-415. K/97 CA. Athar Ali Khan 170(497 Insp.
Application date 05.02- 95 (before ad) for the post of - BPS.' 7) Engineer B.E. (Elio ) 25-0846 Regular AD Scheme 18.02.97 . Applied for B-17 "Engineer" before the ad of AD of March .
1995.
Appeared in the AD's test but selected me Inspector.
74. CP- Arshad lentil Insp. - According B.Sc 30-06-96 I0-02-97 Appeared 1423/97 to ad of AD. 95 Regular AD . In the um of AD. But CA- 961PY97 Scheme selected as 669/91 In ur.
75. (i) Amer Mogan Tahir 365(8)/97 Insp. - No application only bin- data is available MSc 3046-96 Regular AD Scheme - , 18.02-97 Appeared in the AD sea buil salecsed as Inspector.
BSc 25-0196 15-02-97 Iii) Muhammad Kaehif A.D. Undated. Without ref of ad of AD, 95 Through P.0 Box (Eng g) Regular Appointed by 1DG (A) without testantervie w.
369021/97 lasp. JOG 27-0246 17-02-97 IA)
60 Asif Abbas Addressed to DG Ill without ref of any ad. Adhoc 389(R)/97
76. CP-61/98 Run Shaluad Ahmed Imp - Undated, addressed to B.A. 3046-96 18-02.97 Appeared in AD ten.
CA- 273(1)/97 PM without Remdar AD but selected 6717/98 mentioning the post for Scheme as Inspector.
77. CP- Mitre Hashim A.D. - Undated. M A 25-08-96 15-02.97 Not applied 1420/98 Rata addressed to DG 18. Not according to sd of CA- against the Regular AD.
95. -688/98 6160097 ad of AD 95.
71 CP- (i)Saifullah A.D. - No B 25-08-96 15-02-97 I B 1433/98 application only BM- ( om Regular employee. Being B..
CA- 415(8)/97 Data is Com not 670198 available. Eligible.
(ii) Mujhaiddin Insp. According 59(P)97 to ad. Of AD,
95. For the post of B-17. M.
Sc 30-06-96 Retnlifil Al)
Scheme 18-02-97 Appeared in the test of AD, but selected as Inspector.
CP-06/911 Gludam Sabir A.D - Addressed to Dir M A 25-08-96 15-02-97 - CA- 5350097 - (Admit) Regular 672/98 CP-34/98 Moho/milt& hup Undated. Without B A 27-06-96 17-02-97 CA- 365(1)/97 addressee Regular 678/98 and pate.
111 CP-35/98 Immo Siddique A.D. - According to ad of AD M.A. 25-01-96 15-02-97 - CA- 1995.
679/98 669(R)/97 82 CP-90/98 CA.
692/98 Muhammad Arthad 531(R)/97 Insp. - Undated without addressee and post Refame of AD not mentioned. B.A. 16-07-96 Regular 17-02-97 - 83 CP-91/98 CA-693- 98 Named Nazar Chem* 368(R)/97 Insp. - Undated, without addressee and post. For the post Inspector FIA. B.A. 30-06-96 Regular .18-02.97 Appeared in the AD's test selected as Inspector.
84. CP-92/98 CA- 694/98 Naccen Yar 366(R)/97 Insp. PM Seen.
List Without application M.A. 16-07.96 Regular 18-02-97 Appeared in the AD's test selected us Inspector
45. CP. Jawaid 1403/97 Manzoor CA- FST-529-R 666/98 SI Unsigned. Undated without addressee and post. B.A. 304*-96 Temporary 06-03-97
86. CP-64/98 Ch. Naveed Ahmed Jharnat CA- 688/98 333(R)/97 Insp. - According to Ad of AD 1995. M.A. 30-06-96 Regular Al)
Se 1 Wale 18-02-97 Applied ; BPS-17 but selected for BPS-16.
117. CP-43/98 Gludiant Sadique CA- 680/98 3 P 7 Sr D 110 lb , Undated, addressed Dir 1B Prim- Ary 20-02-95 Ashoc 16-10-96 Appointed without prescribed ocedure U CP-93/98 Raul.' Anwar CA- 31211)/97 695/98 SI - Undated, without ,addressee and post. For the post Inspector Fi A. B.A. 21-07-96.
Regular AD Scheme 26-02.96 Applied/Ns ted for B17 but selected B-14
89. - Muhammad lesashif ,_____t 369(R7 Asti Abbas 391 R '97 Al).
Map
91. CP- Kaalltial 1310/98 Shaukat CA-2009 7 R 8 A.D
92. ('P-1999 Tann Mehmand CA-822 A.D.
93. CP-' Arshad Ahmed 1369/200 Khan 0 76(9)197. I Mumtaz Ahmed Shaikh 1850(2/97 Insp.
93. Altar Hussain 236(1)197 Insp,
96. Ammon!! h #TBS PLC (Stroke) #TBE #TBS "The general principle with regard to the interpretation of statutes as laid down in the well- known case of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited v.. Irving (1905 AC 369) is that 'if the matter in 'question be a matter of procedure only', the provisions would be retrospective. 'On the other hand, if it be more than a matter of procedure, if it touches -a right in existence at the passing of the Act', then 'in accordance with a long line of authorities extending #TBE #TBS We find force in the submissions made by Mr. K.M.A. Samdani to the effect that all the persons were appointed in the year 1996 and were inducted as "initial appointees". His further contention that all of them were consciously put on probation for one year with the rider that after passage of first year of probation, their probationary period will be extendable by a further period not exceeding one year and, in case, no order terminating the probationary period is passed, their appointments will be deemed to be until further orders. Viewed in this perspective, the respondent- department had the requisite authority to put an end to the services of all the employees, as above, without issuing any show-cause notice as contemplated by section 11 (ibid). Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is not applicable in that it became effective on 2-6-1997 while the orders of termination were made between February-May, 1997. The provisions of section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 189i are procedural in nature. It is well-settled that procedural laws are retrospectively applied to pending proceedings. Refer Adrian Afzal v. Capt. Sher Afzal (PLD 1969 SC 187), wherein it was observed: #TBE #TBS their services were terminated during the probationary period of one year within the contemplation of section 11(1) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. This being so, the real controversy for determination is whether the appellants/petitioners Were entitled to a show-cause notice before passing of the termination orders and what is the effect of section 24-A of the General Clauses Act No,X of 1897 (incorporated by Act No,XI of 1997 with effect from 2-6-1997). #TBE #TBS which the appellants/petitioners were appointed they were on probation and C #TBE #TBS After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and some of the appellants/petitioners in person at some length, we are of the view that it is not necessary to deal with all the points raised in the leave granting order, in that, it is an admitted fact that irrespective of the nature of posts against #TBE #TBS A bare perusal of the above Chart shows that the services of the appellants/petitioners were terminated within the probationary period of one year. #TBE Ammanullah 96 Khan 263(L)/97 {{TABLE}} from the time of Lord Coke to the present day', the legislation would not operate retrospectively, unless the Legislature had either "by express enactment or by necessary intendment' given the legislation retroactive effect."
"To the same effect are the observations of Jesse!, Master of the Rolls, in the case of In re: Joseph Suche & Co. Limited (1875) 1 Ch.D.48), where it was observed that as 'a general rule when the Legislature alters the rights of parties by taking away or conferring any right of action, its enactments, unless in express terms they apply to pending actions, do not affect them. It is said that there is one exception to that rule, namely, that, these enactments merely affect procedure and do not extend to rights of action, they have been held to apply to existing rights."
"The next question, therefore, that arises for consideration is as to what are matters of procedure. It is obvious that matters relating to the remedy, the mode of trial, the manner of taking evidence and forms of action are all matters relating to procedure. Crawford too takes the view that questions relating to jurisdiction over a cause of action, venue, parties pleadings and rules of evidence also pertain to procedure, provided the burden of proof is not shifted. Thus, a statute purporting to transfer jurisdiction over certain causes of action may operate retroactively. This is what is meant by saying that a change of forum by a law is retrospective being a matter of procedure only. Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that if in this process any existing rights are affected or the giving of retroactive operation cause inconvenience or injustice, then the Courts will not even in the case of a procedural statute, favour an interpretation giving retrospective effect to the statute. On the other hand, if the new procedural statute is of such a character that its retroactive application will tend to promote justice without any consequential embarrassment or detriment to any of the parties concerned, the Courts would favourably incline towards giving effect to such procedural statutes retroactively."
' Also refer Nabi Ahmed v. Home Secretary, Government of West Pakistan, Lahore (PLD 1969 SC 599), Malik Gul Hassan & Co. v. Allied Bank of Pakistan (1996 SCM R 237) and Muhammad Afzal v. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (1999 SCM R 92). Clearly, such laws do not affect transactions past and closed.
24. Be that as it may, the appointment of a civil servant whether against E a temporary or a permanent post, if made on probation or on officiating basis on the competent authority is possessed of the powers to terminate his services at any time and it may do so for any reason relatable to the exigencies of service. No show-cause notice is required in such cases. It is well- settled that a probationer has no vested right to continue in service; therefore, the question of violation of the principle of audi alteram partem does not arise except in case of mala fide, which is not the case here.
25. As to the observations made by the Tribunal that these appointments were result of political pressure, Mr. Samdani frankly conceded that he is unable to substantiate the same from record.
We are also of the view that the above observations are vague and were made in a rolled-up manner without recording findings against anyone of the appellants/petitioners. As to the office noting, to which a reference has been made in the impugned order, suffice it to say that such reference are of no consequence in the absence of any proof to substantiate the same, which is lacking in these cases. Therefore, observations regarding political pressure etc. Being unwarranted are hereby expunged.
26. The result is that the impugned orders of termination from service of the appellants/petitioners will not stand in their way while pursuing any future processes for joining service in accordance with law.
27. Civil Appeal No,680 of 1998 and Civil Petitions Nos.1369, 1445, 1458, 1459, and 1891 of 2000 are variantly barred by time. Delay in filing these cases is hereby condoned.
28. Accordingly, the above appeals/petitions are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
Appeals/.