UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB Versus SARDAR ALI
ORDER
1. JAVID IQBAL, J. --This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 9th June, 1981.
2. Briefly the facts are that Ch. Sardar Ali respondent was appointed as Lecturer in the University Law College by the Syndicate of the Punjab University on the recommendation of the Selection Board on 30 September, 1976. According to the letter of appointment, besides other matters, the respondent was to be on two years' probation and the appointment was terminable on one month's notice during the period of probation and on three months' notice after the confirmation from either side or on tender of pay for the said period in lieu thereof. Furthermore the appointment was to be governed by the relevant University Rules, Regulations and Statutes. Subsequently by a letter dated 23 August 1979 the period of his probation was extended for one year with effect from 29 September, 1978. Thus his three years' period of probation was now to expire on 28 September, 1979. Thereafter by another letter dated 27 August, 1979 the appointment of the respondent was terminated on the ground that during the period of probation his work and conduct had not been found satisfactory. The respondent challenged the termination of his services by the University of the Punjab petitioner No. 1 by way of writ petition which was heard by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore who dismissed it in limine on 9 October 1979. He challenged the aforesaid order in Inter-Court Appeal before the same Court which was accepted by a learned Division Bench vide judgment dated 9 June 1981, and as a result the impugned order of petitioner No. 1 was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and the respondent continued to remain in the service of petitioner No. 1. Hence the present petition for leave filed by the petitioners, i.e. University of the Punjab, The Registrar University of the Punjab, and The Dean Faculty of Law University of the Punjab.
3. It was argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the main ground on which the learned Judges of the Division Bench accepted the appeal of the respondent was that under the Rules etc. of the said University there was no express order of confirmation required to be passed by the competent authority after the expiry of the total prescribed period of three years' probation. Learned counsel for the petitioners, relying on the Calendar of the University of the Punjab 1977-78 Vol. 1, pages 390 and 391, stated that on the conclusion of the period of probation of any member of the service, the Syndicate or the Vice-Chancellor, as the case may be shall confirm such member in his appointment, or if his work or conduct has, in their opinion, not been satisfactory they may dispense with his services. It was argued that in the case of the respondent, his confirmation had not been recommended and therefore, the Vice-Chancellor terminated his services not by dismissing him or removing him but by not confirming him in his appointment. It was submitted that the competent authority namely, the Vice-Chancellor under the Rules etc. of the University had the power to do so. It was next argued that the respondent was not confirmed in his appointment because his work and conduct was not considered to be satisfactory. Here it was argued that the use of the expression 'conduct' did not mean that he had been leveled any allegation of misconduct but it only meant his 'behavior' and that in such circumstances for terminating his services no inquiry was required to be conducted as his termination of service did not amount to him being stigmatized. In this connection learned counsel placed reliance on Muhammad Siddiq Javaid Chaudhry v. Government of West Pakistan P L D 1974 S C 393. In that case it was held that if the services of a probationer are terminated on the ground of misconduct then such course amounted to removal or dismissal and the probationer being stigmatized was entitled to a show-cause notice and proper inquiry against him. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, by the use of the word "conduct" in the letter terminating the services of the respondent, no mala fides were intended as it was not an allegation of misconduct. It was next argued that the Vice-Chancellor had been delegated the powers not to confirm the respondent in his appointment and to terminate his services if his reports indicated that his work and conduct was not satisfactory during the period of probation. Consequently the order of termination of his services was legal and proper and should have not been set aside by the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore.
4. We heard Ch. Muhammad Farooq learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Syed Afzal Haider learned counsel for the respondent. We grant leave in this case in order to examine the question, inter alia, whether or not on .the expiry of the period of probation a specific order of confirmation of a probationer is required to be passed by the competent authority under the Rules, Regulations etc. by the petitioner University.
5. The case shall be prepared on the present record with liberty to file additional documents, if any. The stay already granted is to continue.
6. M.I./U-12/S Leave granted.