AMIR AHMED vs SECRETARY, FINANCE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD and another

' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The appellant was appointed to the `accounts group' on the basis of the Competitive Examination held in 1983. He joined the Civil Service Academy for training on 18-10- 1984. By an order dated 19-6-1986, while he was still on probation, his services were terminated under section 11(1)(i), Civil Servants Act, 1973. On 13-5-1987 he made a representation to the Prime Minister against the termination of his services. His representation was withheld by his department on the ground that it was out of time. He filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal, but, it was 'dismissed. He has now come in an appeal to this Court.

2. Leave to appeal was granted to the appellant to consider the following question: "The grievance of the petitioner is that no show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner before terminating his services. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the probation he was entitled to the show-cause notice before an advaerse action is taken against him. He has relied upon Muhammad Siddiq Javid Chaudhry v. Government of West Pakistan PLD 1974 SC 393."

' It appears that from June 1986 till he made a representation to the Prime Minister the appellant disappeared. By a letter dated 22-2-1988 he was asked by the Auditor-General to report for duty at a Training Institute. The letter was sent at three different addresses where he could possibly be found. It appears that he did receive one of them. Yet he did not care to comply with or even acknowledge the letter that he had received. Under section 11(1)(i), Civil Servants Act, the competent authority can terminate the services of a civil servant on probation without notice.

Considering the conduct of the appellant is mentioned above, the power vesting in the competent authority under the I said clause does not appear to have been unjustifiably exercised.

3. It is stated on behalf of the appellant that he had lost his mental balance and it was for this reason that he was unable to respond to the letter which had been sent to him by the department.

In support of this assertion a certificate issued by Dr. Muhammad Rashid Chaudhry, formerly of the King Edward Medical College, Lahore, has been produced. The certificate runs as follows: "This is to certify that Mr. Amir Ahmad son of Mr. Shukar Din has been under my treatment since 1986 vide Card No, 53512. I have reexamined him today the 30th of March, 1987. At present he is mentally clear."

' It will be noticed that this certificate does not show that while under the treatment of Dr. Muhammad Rashid Chaudhry he was confined to any asylum or was incapable of looking after his daily business or that he was unable to contact his department or respond to the communication received by him.

4. As stated earlier the departmental representation made by the appellant against the termination of his services was barred by time. In the circumstances, his appeal before the learned Tribunal was not maintainable. See Chairman, PIAC v. Nasim Malik PLD 1990 SC 951. The learned Tribunal was therefore justified in refusing to interfere with the order of the departmental authority.

This appeal is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.