1990SCMR 1510 (PLP)
Syed TAHIR HUSSAIN SHIRAZI — Petitioner Versus THE GOVERNOR OF THE PUNJAB and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1990SCMR 1510 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Syed TAHIR HUSSAIN SHIRAZI — Petitioner Versus THE GOVERNOR OF THE PUNJAB and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (a) Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990SCMR 1510 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (a) Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990SCMR 1510 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990SCMR 1510 (PLP) (Syed TAHIR HUSSAIN SHIRAZI — Petitioner Versus THE GOVERNOR OF THE PUNJAB and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rao M.Yousaf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in all Petitions).
- Date of hearing: 31st July, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the two judgments both dated 12-7-1987 passed in Appeal No.196 of 1987 and 1-30, 2-31, 3-32 of 1987, respectively).
S.10(1)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)
Termination of services during probation period
Effect
Law on probationers' right while in service having been extensively and authoritatively dealt with by Supreme Court in Muhammad Siddique Javed Chaudhary's case reported as P L D 1974 S C 393, petitioner could make out no case for successfully challenging order of termination of service while on probation
Such order had been passed by competent authority against whom no grudge or malice was alleged
Order of termination of service contained no stigma and required no show-cause procedure, as such. Muhammad Siddique Javed Chaudhry and others' case PLD 1974 SC 393 ref.
Art.212(3)
Adverse; remarks against civil servant
Adverse remarks against civil servant though recorded somewhat late, yet delay as such would not affect their efficacy or legality
Civil servant could not claim any right in the procedure prescribed by High Court for recording of such remarks and for dealing with them
No vested right of civil servant was involved and his services having been competently terminated, there was no scope for going deeper into recording of adverse remarks
No question of law of public importance having been raised, leave to appeal was refused. Petitioners in person (in all Petitions).
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR. RAHMAN, J.
The petitioner, by four separate petitions under Article 212(3) of the Constitution seeks leave to appeal against the two judgments of the learned Service Tribunal both' dated 12-7-1987 whereby his three appeals against the recording of the adverse r-marks and another against termination of his services while on probation, were dismissed.
2. The petitioner alongwith others was appointed on 10th of July, 1984 as Additional District and Sessions Judge on probation, for a period of two years. By an order passed on 9th of October, 1986, the period of probation was extended by one year from 23rd of August, 1986. On 26th January, 1987, the following order was passed terminating his services:- "The services of Mr.Tatheer Hussain Shirazi, Additional District and Sessions Judge, R.Y.Khan, are terminated with immediate effect during the probation period under Section 10(1) of the Punjab- Civil Servants Act, 1974." "This order of termination of his services was challenged by the Petitioner (now the subject matter of Civil Petition for leave to Appeal No:722 of '1987) on numerous grounds. The main ground was that the termination was based on adverse report which were not promptly recorded in accordance with the law nor communicated in time, nor the representation of the petitioner against them considered before taking this action. The termination of service while on probation amounted to stigma and was the result of victimization, or a mala fide action on account of personal grudge. The Service Tribunal rejected all the appeals on the ground that no case was made out for interference.
3. The petitioner argued the appeals himself, emphasizing more the more the nonobservance of procedure and law in recording the adverse reports, in time, in communicating them to him, and in disposing of his representations.
4. The law on the probationers' right while in service has been de-alt with extensively and authoritatively by this Court in the case of Muhammad Siddique Javed Chaudhry and others P L D 1974 S C
393. Judged by the law laid down in that case it is clear that the petitioner can make out no case for successfully challenging the order of termination of his service while on probation. The order has been passed by the competent authority against whom no grudge or malice is alleged. It contains no stigma and required no show cause procedure, as such.
5. As regards the recording of the adverse remarks against the petitioner, though these have been recorded somewhat late, the delay as such would not affect their efficacy or legality. The petitioner further cannot claim any right in the procedure prescribed by the High Court for the recording of such remarks and for dealing with them. The Chief Justice as the head of the Institution had to take care and ensured the compliance with the law as best as could take place on the facts and circumstances of the case. No vested right of the Petitioner is involved and his services having been competently terminated, leave no scope for going deeper into the recording of remarks.
6. No question of law of public importance arises and leave to appeal is refused in all the four petitions. AA./T-57/S Leave refused.