Find a Lawyer

Case No. 167/569 of 1975, decided on, 15th March, 1977.

‑‑Termination of service‑Order though described as merely termi nation but passed on basis of objectionable conduct and bad reputation tantamount to removal‑Requirements of law as to charge‑sheet, departmental inquiry and show‑cause notice and personal hearing not observed‑Impugned order, in circumstances, set aside by Service Tribunal directing department to proceed in accordance with law‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

P L D1974 S C 393 fol.

Masood Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.

A. G. Humayun, Government Pleader for Respondent.

‑This is an appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 by the appellant a temporary P. S. I., since removed from service by the order of D. I.‑G. of Police. Multan Range, dated 8th February, 1975 on the ground that he earned an adverse report for his work and conduct during the year 1972‑73 and that his service record and present reputation were clear indications of his unsuitability for retention in service. The appellant also approached the Inspector‑General of Police on 12th March, 1975 against his discharge from service but his representation was rejected on 21st March, 1975 with the observation that there was no technical or legal flaw in the order of discharge in the absence of which the general merits of the order of discharge issued by the compe tent authority could not be discussed and the representation was accord ingly rejected.

The present appeal as filed before us on 14th March, 1975 seeks to challenge the aforesaid action of the respondent on the ground that the order by him though described as termination was tantamount to removal for which the requirements of law as to charge‑sheet, Depart mental Inquiry and show‑cause notice and also that of personal hearing have trot been observed. Reliance was placed on the following observation of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, reported as P L D 1974 S C 393 appearing at page 401 :‑

"In my opinion, if the service of a probationer is terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory work that will not amount to dismissal or removal from service, such termination will be in terms of the contract or the rules made by the Government but if the service of a probationer is terminated on the ground of misconduct that will amount to removal or dismissal. It will be a stigma in his favour."

In our opinion the ratio of the above decision clearly supports the, contention of the appellant inasmuch as the impugned order has been passed on the basis of the objectionable conduct and the bad reputation of the appellant. We accordingly set aside the order and direct the Department to proceed in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. Let the parties be informed of this order.

A. E.

Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.