1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Appellant in person. Niaz Ahmed Khan, Standing Counsel for Respondent. Date of hearing: 9th March, 1994. ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN):

‑On selection by the Federal Public Service Commission, the appellant, Mr. Ashfaq Muhammad was appointed as Electronic Engineer (B‑17) in the Meteorological Department, Karachi on the terms and conditions laid down in the Office Memorandum, dated 28th May, 1991, which he accepted and thereafter, a Notification, dated 23‑9‑1991 was issued appointing him as Electronic Engineer (B‑17) with effect from 11‑6‑1991 and he was placed on probationary period for one year as admissible under the rules. According to appellant, he completed the probationary period satisfactorily after the prescribed period of one year. It is argued that respondent No. 2, the Director, Maintenance Division, of the Meteorological Department, with mala fide pointed out certain irregularities in the purchase of some Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) machines made by the Director, Maintenance Division, and he developed grudge against the appellant, which ultimately culminated into the passing of order of termination made on 6‑7‑1993, under section 11(1)(i) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The appellant filed departmental appeal to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence on 12‑6‑1993, which remained unresponded. He then filed this appeal before the Tribunal on 9‑9‑1993.

2. The appellant appeared and argued his appeal. His contention was that he had completed the probationary period of one year, thereafter his services could not be terminated without notice or opportunity of hearing.

3. The respondents have filed comments and they have categorically denied the allegation that respondent No. 2 had any grudge against the appellant on account of purchase of machinery which the appellant had alleged. It has been stated that the requisite machinery was purchased by the Director‑General of Supplies as per rules and the department had no role in the deliberations of the Department of Supplies. It has been stated that soon after the joining the appellant, used to come late and leave the office at his own and his conduct and performance during the initial period of one year was not satisfactory and, therefore, he was issued several letters to improve his conduct but he failed to improve himself and it was on this account that the probationary period of one year was extended to another year. During the extended period of probation, the appellant did not show any improvement and the competent Authority was constrained to take notice of the situation and accordingly terminated his services under section 11 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and there has been no discrimination and illegality in the proceedings as no notice is required. Mr. Niaz Ahmed Khan the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents argued that since the appellant was on probation, his services has rightly been terminated under section 11 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and no notice was required.

4. We have considered the arguments of both the parties and perused the record. The appellant was appointed as Electronic Engineer (B‑17) on the recommendations of the Federal Public Service Commission, with effect from 11‑6‑1991 and under the terms and conditions of his appointment which he accepted at the time of joining. He was placed under probation initially for one year which was further extended for another period of one year and during that period the services of the appellant were terminated under section 11(1)(i) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, by the competent Authority by order dated 10‑6‑1993, as the conduct and performance of the appellant was not found satisfactory, and no notice was necessary. Every civil servant on initial appointment is placed on probationary period as specified under the rules and intention is that a civil servant has to prove his suitability for retention in service by his conduct and also by his efficiency, and this period is deemed as trial period. In case a civil servant does not bother to improve himself during the initial probationary period, it is obvious that he has to face the consequences according to terms and conditions of his service. As the record shows, the appellant had been indolent and had a casual attitude towards service. He was habitual late‑comer for which he had to his credit several warnings in writing and such adverse entries were also recorded in his A.C.R. for 1991 and 1992. In spite of several warnings, the appellant did not improve and the respondents rightly invoked the provisions of section 11(1) (i) of the Civil Servant Act, 1973 and terminated the services of the appellant during probationary period and no notice was required, and the impugned order is unexceptionable. Reliance is placed on 1990 SCMR 1510 (Syed Tahir Hussain Shirazi v. Government of Punjab).

5. The appeal having no merit is dismissed with costs, H.B.T./995/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.