Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Syed RASHID HUSSAIN BOKHARI VS Respondent: DIRECTOR, EDUCATION (COLLEGES), BAHAWALPUR DIVISION
1985 P L C (C
1985 P L C (C.S.) 856
[Service Tribunal Punjab]
Present : S. Abdul Jabbar Khan, Chairman, Abdul Hamid Chaudhry and Mian Faiz Karim, Members
Syed RASHID HUSSAIN BOKHARI
versus
DIRECTOR, EDUCATION (COLLEGES), BAHAWALPUR DIVISION AND ANOTHER
Case No. 862 of 1984, decided on 6th November, 1984.
Civil services‑
‑‑Termination of service on basis of terms of appointment‑Appoint ment initially on ad hoc basis for one year but further extended ‑Terms and conditions in appointment order specifically mentioned that same liable to termination at any time on one week's notice or by surrendering one week's pay without assigning any reason Termination in accordance with terms of appointment‑Not excep tionable.
JUDGMENT
S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑‑Syed Rashid Hussain Bokhari, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, against the order of respondent No. 1, dated 15th October, 1984, and 31st October, 1984, by which his services had been terminated. He has impleaded the Director Education Colleges, Bahawalpur Division. Bahawalpur and Mr. Muhammad Sarfraz Khan, Lecturer in English at Government Inter‑College, Yazman, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders may be set aside and he be reinstated in service.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Lecturer in N.P.S.‑17 Collegiate Branch Men/Women Section, on ad hoc basis for the period of one year till the availability of a selectee of Punjab Public Service Commission whichever was earlier. The terms and conditions of his services communicated to him through Directorate of Educa tion (Colleges) Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur, order dated 19th October, 1982, were as under :‑
"Liable to termination at any time, even within the period specified in (i) above on one week's notice or by surrendering one week's pay (including allowances if any) in lieu thereof, without assigning any reason from either side."
His tenure was further extended again on ad hoc basis by the Governor of the Punjab vide notification dated 1st August, 1984. However, on 15th October, 1984, the Director of Education (Colleges) Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur, terminated the services of the appellant as per clause (iii) of the terms and conditions of his appointment letter No. 1/7‑8217527/ CA/1, dated 19th October, 1982. Hence this appeal.
4. The appellant has argued his case before us and submitted that the order of respondent No. 1 dated 15th October, 1984, was against law and facts and was liable to be set aside. According to the appellant the competent authority under Rule 6 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appoint ment and conditions of service) Rules, 1974 in matter of appointment and termination in respect of post in Basic Pay Scale 16 and above was the Governor. He has alleged mala fide against the Director of Education for issuing the impugned order.
5. We have perused all the notifications appended by the appellant with his appeal and find that the appellant has got no case at all on merits because the terms and conditions of his service fully laid down that his post was liable to termination at any time even within the period specified in (i) above on one week's notice or by surrendering one week's pay (including allowances if any) in lieu thereof without assigning any reason from either side. Even the first appointment order clearly indicates that the appointment of the appellant was on ad hoc basis for period of one year till the availability of selectee of the Public Service Commission. This being so the appellant accepted the job without any demur on the conditions so offered to him. The impugned order of the Director Education (Colleges) Bahawalpur can neither be called perverse nor unjustified because the Director Education (Colleges) Bahawalpur has relied on clause (iii) of the terms and conditions of his appointment order and has simply terminated his services w.e. f. 24th October, 1984 considering the period from 16th October, 1984 to 23rd October, 1983 as one week's notice. The plea of the appellant that the Director was not competent to terminate his services, is also without any foundation, as in‑fact the appointment letter by which he was inducted into service was issued by the said authority and none else. In this way his plea that only Governor could terminate his services, is also without any founda tion.
6. Resultantly the appeal in dismissed in limine as being without any merit.
M. I.
Appeal dismissed.