1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(b) as a probationer ; or (c) on probation ; or (d) on a temporary basis ; (i) for an indefinite period ; or (ii) against a post continued from year to year tar for successive period unless a fresh order of appointment specifically stat ing that the employment shall continue to be subject to these rules ; is issued to the incumbent of the Post each time the post is extended ; or (e) on contract ; or (j) as a workman as defined in the Industrial Disputes Ordinance 1959 (LVI of 1959). (g) on deputation from the Central Government, and (h) "temporary employee" means a person who is in temporary employment." He also alleged that the evidence was lead to prove the allegations that he was dismissed from service on the basis of misconduct and unsatis factory work. He also relied upon P L D 1969 Dacca 30 to contend that if the record shows that the services were terminated due to mis conduct, it was tantamount to removal. He also argued that the termina tion was not by the competent Authority. It was argued that the respon dent was appointed by the Senior Blood Transfusion Officer which was a post equivalent to the Director. He also placed reliance that on appeal he was reinstated on the ground that in terms of rule 4(1) of 1968 Rules, he was entitled to 14 day's notice. He also argued that the order dated 3rd June, 1970 was in excess of the powers of the Competent Authority. After hearing both the parties, we are inclined to agree with the learned Government Pleader that this was not a case in which the mis conduct was involved. We have seen the record and we find that the appellant was served with a Show‑Cause Notice on the ground of inefficiency only. No doubt the Divisional Blood Transfusion Officer while' endorsing the termination order to the Provincial Blood Transfusion' Officer observed that "the work as well as the conduct of the respondent was unsatisfactory" but the observation appeared to have been used rather loosely and there was nothing on record to suggest any stigma against the appellant as held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in P L D 1974 S C

393. We are not in agreement with the learned trial Court's findings as it has failed to take into consideration the following observations of the Supreme Court of Pakistan: ‑ "In my opinion if the services of a probationer are terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory work that will not amount to dismissal or removal. from service as the termination will be in terms of the contract or the rules made by the Government, but if the services of the probationer are terminated on the ground of misconduct, that will amount to removal or dis missal. It will be a stigma in his favour." There was no legal evidence placed before the trial Court that the services of the respondent were terminated on the ground of misconduct. Thus in our view the above decisions had no application to the facts of the case. His services were never terminated on the basis of his conduct. We agree with the learned Government Pleader that the trial Court mis directed itself on the aforesaid question, In our view the facts on record which lead to the termination order rather than the averment in the endorsement were material and crucial. We accordingly hold that the services of the appellant, who was still on probation, could be terminate in accordance with the condition No. 2 in his letter of appointment. As such the impugned order was unexceptionable. The Provincial Transfusion Officer acted correctly in withdrawing his order dated 18th May, 1970 which evidently proceeded on erroneous premises. Thus the appeal succeeds. However, there will be no order as to costs.