MUHAMMAD ASLAM RIZVI Versus DIRECTOR-GENERAL, CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY, KARACHI

ORDER

1. SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, J. ‑‑‑The petition under Article 199 of the Constitution by Muhammad Aslam Rizvi, a trainee in Civil Aviation Authority has arisen in the following circumstances.

2. The petitioner was selected as Air Traffic Control Officer (ATCO) trainee vide appointment letter dated 9‑5‑1990. The duration of training for basic Air Traffic Control Officer course was 40 weeks from 13th May, 1990 to 14th February, 1991. Petitioner and another trainee were issued written warnings regarding unsatisfactory academic performance.

3. The period of training was nine months and the petitioner had completed his seven months training when he was withdrawn from the training because of his poor performance.

4. The case of the petitioner, as set out in the petition, is that the order of termination of service is mala fide issued without any show‑cause notice. The order is illegal and the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false, baseless and without any foundation. Neither any charge‑sheet nor any enquiry was held and the order is the result of prejudice against the petitioner as he was selected through Placement Bureau of the previous regime. It is the further case of the petitioner that the appointment letter embodied the terms and conditions of service and it also provides that if during or after the training the petitioner is not considered fit for employment as Air Traffic Control Officer, he will be given another employment by the competent authority and this aspect has not, been at all considered by the respondents before termination of service of the petitioner.

5. The respondents have filed parawise comments. The respondents stated that three trainees including the petitioner were withdrawn from the training course on 10‑12‑1990 on the basis of poor academic performance. Initially warning regarding unsatisfactory academic performance was issued in writing to the petitioner and Ghulam Farid by the Chief of ATS School. The respondents averred that petitioner had approached the Respondent vide his application dated 10‑12‑1990 to accommodate him providing employment on some alternate job. This application processed by the respondent and after due consideration, the request petitioner was regretted with the advice to apply afresh for a suitable, post It commensurate to his qualifications/experience as and when published in the Press.

6. Mr. Azizur Rehman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that a probationer is entitled to the safeguard of the show‑cause notice guaranteed against dismissal or removal from service.

7. Under clause (d) of para. 1 of the appointment letter, the services of the petitioner were liable to be terminated on the following grounds:‑

8. "(d) During training your services are liable to be terminated at any time due to unsatisfactory performance e.g. unsatisfactory academic result, poor conduct etc."

9. The services of the petitioner were disposed of under Regulation No. 4.16 of CAA Service Regulations on account of his work and conduct having been found unsatisfactory during the period of probation.

10. In the view which we take of the case, the establishment of a satisfactory work was a condition sine qua non to the completion of the contract of employment.

11. A probationer is a person who is taken in service subject to the condition that it will attain sure footing only of during the period that he is on probation he shows that he is a fit person to be retained in service. Termination of service during the period of probation does not amount to either removal or dismissal unless the order of terminating the service mentions that it was terminated because of misconduct of the employee.

12. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel inasmuch as that if during or after termination, the petitioner is not considered fit for employment as ATCO, he may be given another employment as indicated by the competent authority. The learned counsel was unable to point out any legal infirmity or jurisdictional defect in the impugned order. The Constitution petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.

13. The above are the reasons for the short order dated 3‑6‑1992 dismissing the petition in limine.

14. H.B.T./M‑1754/K ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Petition dismissed.