1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑This Appeal arose from the order of Medical Superintendent, Liaqat Medical College Hospital, Hyderabad dated 3‑2‑1985 whereby the services of the appellant Miss. Shaheen Manthar Ali Arbab as Assistant House Keeper, were terminated. The said order was the result of the departmental proceedings taken out against the appellant. To begin with, she was served with a show‑cause notice dated 11th February, 1984 wherein she was charged that she was irresponsible and careless in keeping cleanliness and discipline in management Nursing Hospital and that in spite of verbal warnings several times he had not improved. The appellant submitted her reply to the said charges. After taking into consideration her reply and after giving her personal hearing the aforesaid authority passed the impugned order. We heard the arguments addressed, at the bar and also went through the relevant documents.

2. The main submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the allegations made against the appellant were vague, and that no detailed inquiry was held to prove the said allegations. He further submitted that even if the appellant was held not to be entitled to show‑cause notice, since the same was given to her, it was mandatory to follow the prescribed procedure before awarding the major penalty of termination of services to the appellant.

3. As is clear from the appointment order dated 18‑10‑1984 the appellant was appointed as Assistant House Keeper in BS‑6 on recommendations of the Departmental Selection Committee. The order further shows that she was to remain on probation for two years. During which her services were liable to be terminated without assigning any reason. Even otherwise, as provided in section 6 (1) of the Sind Civil Servant Act 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) initial appointment to service or post, not being an ad hoc appointment, shall be on probation as may be prescribed. The appellant's appointment was admittedly on recommendations of the Departmental Selection Committee and therefore was not an ad hoc appointment.

4. The word 'prescribed' as defined in clause (g) of section 2 (1) of the said Act means prescribed by rules. The relevant rules in this connection are called the Sind Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) .Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the 1975‑Rules). According to Rule 2 of these rules a person appointed to a post by an initial recruitment shall be on probation for twos years. Thus both in terms of her appointment order and the above rules the appellant was on probation when the impugned order of termination of her service was passed. As provided in subsection (1) of section 11 of the said Act, services of a civil servant may be terminated without notice during the initial or extended period of "his probation. Thus the appellant being on probation her services could be terminated even without notice. Obviously the charges levelled against the appellant spoke of only her incompetence and inefficiency. They did not reflect on her character or integrity amounting to blemish in which case show‑cause notice even in the case of probationer was a must. Her services could be terminated without giving the appellant show‑cause notice which seems to have been issued in ignorance of the relevant rules on the part of concerned authorities.

5. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that even though the appellant was not entitled to the notice, yet since the notice was given to her, prescribed procedure was to be followed before terminating her services. According to the learned counsel in a case like this a detailed enquiry was necessary which has not been held and as such the entire proceedings were vitiated. We regret we cannot agree with his view. Even if we hold that since show‑cause notice was given to the appellant it was necessary to follow the prescribed procedure, we find that the procedure envisaged by the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules,1973 had been followed and as such we see no force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. According to rule 5 of the said rules if the authority concerned decides not to hold a detailed enquiry he has to follow the alternate course by which the civil servant concerned is to be served with a show‑cause notice. In the instant case show‑cause notice was admittedly served on the appellant to which she had even given her reply. Besides she was also heard in person by the authority concerned. Somehow her reply was not found satisfactory and therefore the impugned order of termination of her service was passed.

6. The only point that remains to be disposed of is whether detailed enquiry was called for in this case. Looking to the nature of allegations made against the appellant we are of the view that no such enquiry was necessary. The disciplinary action was initiated on report of Chief Nursing Superintendent who had given verbal warnings to the appellants several times for improvement but without any result. Moreover, we have gone through the reply submitted by the appellant very closely. She does not specifically deny the allegations contained in the show‑cause notice. All that she says is; "worthy Nursing Superintendent has some misunderstanding about me". She does not allege any mala fide against the reporting Superintendent. She further admits that she had only four months services in the institution and no previous experience of any job and that she was working hard day and night with most zeal to satisfy her superiors. By these admissions she clearly gave an impression that she being totally novice to the job, such lapses as contained in the show‑cause notice were only natural on her part. This impression is further fortified by her reply; "I am trying utmost to keep the hospital clean and tidy and persuading the servants ignore my instructions .." At another place of her reply she has stated: "I am trying my level best to maintain the rules and regulations of the hospital and its discipline.......... I promise that I shall try my level best to satisfy my superiors with my work and conduct and shall be more vigilant in performance of my duties".

7. The way in which the reply of the appellant is worded gives a clear indication that the allegations made against her in the show‑cause notice were not without substance. No doubt she was new to the job. She had put in hardly four months service when the impugned order was passed. In these circumstances the truth of the allegations made against her case cannot be doubted. In view of her own statement given in her reply to the show‑cause notice we are convinced that no further inquiry was necessary. She had admitted that she was inexperienced and that in spite of her best effort most of the time the servants ignored her instructions. Such admission only reflects her incompetence. Finally her undertaking that she would do her best to give entire satisfaction to her superiors also shows that so far her performance was not up to the mark. She has not improved even after verbal warnings by Nursing Superintendent on several occasions. The appellant has not attributed any malice or ill‑will to the said Superintendent. For above reasons we are convinced that not only proper procedure was followed but also the services of the appellant were terminated for good reasons. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. A.A. /141/Sr.S Appeal dismissed