1991 PLP 382 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SAMIULLAH GHAURI — Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, POPULATION WELFARE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 382 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | S. Usman Ali Shah and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SAMIULLAH GHAURI — Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, POPULATION WELFARE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 382 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 382 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: S. Usman Ali Shah and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 382 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SAMIULLAH GHAURI — Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, POPULATION WELFARE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shah Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 30th January, 1990.
- Shah Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against 'the judgment and order of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 6-12-1988 in Appeal No.42(R) of 1985).
Art. 212(3)
Termination of service during period of probation
Legality-- Civil servant was on probation and during probation period competent Authority could dispense with his services
No illegality thus was committed by the Authority
No point of law was involved in petition
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
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. A.A./M‑1367/S Leave refused.