Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ARIF VS Respondent: GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB
1994 P L C (C
1994 P L C (C.S.) 798
[Lahore High Court]
Before Irshad Hasan Khan, J
MUHAMMAD ARIF
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Local Government and others
Writ Petition No. 744 of 1994, heard on 29th January, 1994.
Punjab Local Councils Service (Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1983‑‑‑
--------R. 11‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Appointment on probation‑‑‑Termination of service of petitioner without notice during probation period‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Petitioner was appointed on probation of two years‑‑‑Petitioner's services during probation period were liable to be terminated at any time without notice under S. 11, Punjab Local Councils Service (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1993‑‑‑No exception could therefore, be taken to the termination of petitioner.
Secretary, East Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation, Dacca v. M.D. Sekandar Mian 1970 SCMR 398; Abdul Karim v. West Pakistan Province PLD 1956 .SC (Pak.) 298 and Noorul Hasan v. The Federation of Pakistan PLD 1956 SC (Pak.) 331 ref.‑
Syed Nadeem Saqlain for Petitioner.
Rana Muhammad Arshad, Addl. A‑G. for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 29th January 1994.
JUDGMENT
The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Tax Moharrir in Export Tax Branch, Zila Council, Gujrat, on daily wages basis on 19‑8‑1992. Subsequently, after completion, of probationary period of satisfactory work of about nine months, his services were regularized by the Selection Committee and formally approved by the Chairman, Zila Council, Gujrat. Consequently, he was appointed as Tax Moharrir in BS‑5 against regular strength of the post of Tax Moharrir, therefore, the impugned termination of his services vide Order No. 1907‑9/RK, dated 13‑7‑1993, passed by the Chief Officer, Zila Council, Gujrat, is based on the erroneous assumption that he was appointed on temporary basis.
2. Further contends that the impugned termination of the petitioner tantamount to dismissal from service with a stigma, in that, his services have been dispensed with on the ground that he misappropriated a sum of Rs. 650, but no show‑cause notice was issued to the, petitioner to rebut the allegation levelled against him.
3. The contention is devoid of any force. It is true that the Chief Officer, Gujrat, lodged a report with the police against the petitioner in respect of alleged misappropriation, yet orders terminating the services of the petitioner do not contain any charge or stigma. It is a case of termination simpliciter and cannot be regarded by way of penalty. The principle of natural justice affording an‑opportunity to show cause is not attracted to the facts of the present case. Refer Secretary, East Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation, Dacca v. M.D. Sekandar Mian 1970 SCMR 398, Abdul Karim v. West Pakistan Province PLD 1956 SC (Pak.) 298 and, Noorul Hasan v. The Federation of Pakistan PLD 1956 SC (Pak.) 331. Additionally the petitioner was appointed on daily wages basis in August, 1992. He was appointed on probation of two years with effect from 31‑5‑1993. During probation period his services were liable to be terminated at any time without notice by virtue of rule 11 of Punjab Local Councils Service (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983. No exception can, therefore, taken to the impugned termination.
In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
AA./M‑1449/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Petition dismissed.