1976 PLP 254 (PLC)

P L D 1967 Lah. 491 rel. Mushtaq Ahmad appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 6-12-1973, passed by Junior Labour Court, Rawalpindi, whereby his application under section 25-A of the I. R. O., 1969 for reinstatement and consequential benefits was dismissed. The appellant's case is that he joined the respondent's service as Conductor in the year 1966. In January 1971, he was dismissed from service. He preferred an appeal to the appropriate authority which was accepted on 3-2-1973 but despite the orders for re-instatement he was not taken back on duty for a long time. On 1-6-73, he was taken back on duty, but his services were again terminated on 3-8-1973 on the ground of misconduct. It is alleged that no show-cause notice or charge-sheet was given to him nor any enquiry was held against him and he was dismissed from, service under the garb of termination simpliciter. The respondent resisted the petition and contended that the services of the petitioner were terminated during probationary period therefore, no notice or enquiry was required. The Junior Labour Court accepted the plea of the respondent and dismissed the petition for re-instatement. Arguments heard. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the order of termination is in fact an order of dismissal on the ground of misconduct under the garb of termination simpliciter and is not sustainable for the reason that the appellant was not given any show-cause notice or charge-sheet nor any enquiry was held aouinst him. The said order reads as follows:- Service of Badly conductor Mushtaq Ahmad TL-266A who was appointed w.e.f. 1-6-73 (FN) and has not completed three months' continuous service are hereby terminated with immediate effect within probation period for unsatisfactory work and conduct detailed below: (1) He failed to carry out his duties in accordance with the departmental instructions thereby his behaviour with superiors and public found unsatisfactory for which a warning was issued to him. (2) His sale proceeds was found poor and unsatisfactory. (3) He has also committed following irregularities while on duty with bus No. 6529 on 13-7-73. (i). He carried 4 passengers without tickets. (ii) Issued less denominational ticket to 3 passengers. (iii) Having excess cash by Rs. 16.15. (4) He failed to submit his reply to charge-sheet No. E/PF/ 260 dated 19-7-73 within stipulated period. The contents of this order show that while passing it mind of the employer was weighed with the allegations of misconduct against the petitioner appellant, therefore, the order is bad in law as no show-cause notice was given' to him nor any enquiry was held against him before passing this order. The contention of the respondent that the appellant was a probationer, therefore, no notice was required to be given to him is without force. In P L D 1967 Lah. 491 it has been held. A probationer is as much in service or as much holds a civil post as any other employees. The only difference is that his appointment hay not yet got a sure footing from the very beginning. But that is a different matter altogether. If what takes place is simple termination of his service, then he is not eligible for a show-cause notice but if it is a dismissal or removal, as for example for misconduct or for unsatisfactory work, then he is eligible for a show-cause notice. The order of termination in this case being against the principles off natural justice is unsustainable. I, therefore accept this appeal, set aside the order of the Court. below and direct the respondent to re-instate the appellant with all back benefits within a fortnight from today.