MUHAMMAD SAMIULLAH GHAURI vs SECRETARY, POPULATION WELFARE
The petitioner, a Statistical Assistant, was appointed as a Junior Instructor in Grade 17 on a one-year probation period. Approximately five months into his probation, his services were terminated, and he was reverted to his parent department. The petitioner challenged this termination before the Service Tribunal, arguing that an inquiry into alleged misconduct should have been conducted prior to his removal. The Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the termination was lawful as the petitioner was a probationer and the order did not cast any stigma upon him. Upon petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the termination of a probationer required a formal inquiry. The Court held that the competent authority has the discretion to dispense with the services of a probationer during the probation period without conducting an inquiry, provided no stigma is attached to the termination. Finding no illegality in the Service Tribunal's order, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the authority acted within its legal competence.
- Can the services of a probationer be terminated without conducting a formal inquiry into misconduct?
- Is a termination order of a probationer valid if it does not cast a stigma on the employee?
- Does the competent authority have the discretion to dispense with the services of a probationer during the probation period?
ORDER
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---The petitioner was serving as Statistical Assistant in the Tourism Division in Grade 11. An advertisement was made for the post of Junior Instructor in the Population Welfare Division. The Federal Public Service Commission recommended his name along with others. He was appointed as Junior Instructor in Grade 17 by notification dated 25-1-1984.
According to the notification, the petitioner was to be on probation for a period of one year. The petitioner took over his new assignment on 30-1-1984. By the notification dated 25-9-1984 the services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from 9-10-1984 and he was reverted to his original post. The petitioner made a representation to the President through the Secretary, Establishment Division. Having failed to receive any reply, he filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal to call in question the order dated 25-9-1984. The appeal was dismissed by the Service Tribunal. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to examine the merits of the case and the order passed by the authority terminating the service of the petitioner. The petitioner was on probation for a period of one year and after about rive months of his taking over his new assignment his services were terminated. It has been further argued that an inquiry should have been conducted about his misconduct before passing the order of termination of his services.
3. The Service Tribunal has taken into consideration this aspect of the case also and observed that there was no stigma against the petitioner. The petitioner was on probation and during the probation period the competent authority could dispense with the services of the petitioner. The petitioner was reverted to his parent department.
4. There is no illegality committed by the authority. The learned counsel has not been able to substantiate any point of law which may require examination by this Court. The petition has no force. Leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.
Cited by 5 cases
- REPRESENTATION/APPEAL UNDER THE CIVIL SERVANTS (APPEAL) RULES, 1977 Versus 2015 GBLR 167
- MUHAMMAD ILYAS KHAN vs SENIOR MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, N.-W.F.P., PESHAWAR and others 2009 SCMR 390
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Versus SYED MUMTAZ AHMED BURNEY 2002 PLC(CS) 25
- MUHAMMAD ILYAS KHAN vs SENIOR MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE NWFP, PESHAWAR and others 2009 PLJ SC 328
- MUHAMMAD ILYAS KHAN vs SENIOR MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, N.-W.F.P., PESHAWAR and others 2011 PLC (C.S.) 935