| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 1235 2022 SLD 1235 2022 PLC 730 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 1576 and 1577 of 2019, decision dated: 08-01-2020, hearing date: 8-01-2020. (Against the order dated 27.10.2016 of the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad passed in Writ Petitions Nos. 1448 and 1593 of 2015)
IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Barrister Umer Aslam, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (in both cases). Muhammad Ramzan Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 1 (in C.A. No. 1576 of 2019). Ms. Shireen Imran, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-o
Civil Appeals Nos. 1576 and 1577 of 2019, decision dated: 08-01-2020, hearing date: 8-01-2020. (Against the order dated 27.10.2016 of the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad passed in Writ Petitions Nos. 1448 and 1593 of 2015)
IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Barrister Umer Aslam, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (in both cases). Muhammad Ramzan Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 1 (in C.A. No. 1576 of 2019). Ms. Shireen Imran, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-o
NATIONAL ELECTRIC POWER REGULATORY AUTHORITY (NEPRA) THROUGH CHAIRMAN
VS
AIJAZ AHMED AND OTHERS
Law:
Section:
Civil service--- ----Probationary employees---Unsatisfactory performance during probation period---Termination of service---In case of a probationary employee the competent authority is possessed of powers to terminate his services at any time and it may do so for any reason relatable to the exigencies of service--- No show cause notice is required in such cases---Probationer has no vested right to continue in service. Respondents were probationary employees of National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA), whose services were terminated due to their unsatisfactory performance during the probation period. Their appointment on probation for a period of one year is an admitted fact. Further, the preparation of their evaluation report by the officials of the appellant-department is also admitted. The contention that the officials of the appellant-department were not competent to make evaluation for the reason that they were not regular employees of the appellant, although raised but could not be substantiated. More so, for the reason that even though they may not be regular employees of the appellant they have the technical capacity skill know how and competence to evaluate the performance of the respondents. Nothing was brought on record to indicate any restriction or bar on the power of the appellant-department or its officials from getting the performance of its officials who are on probation from any source. Such evaluation could also be obtained by the appellant otherwise than by its own employees through outside professional sources consultants. In case of a probationary employee the competent authority is possessed of powers to terminate his services at any time and it may do so for any reason relatable to the exigencies of service. No show cause notice is required in such cases. A probationer has no vested right to continue in service. Rehan Saeed Khan and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2001 PLC (C.S.) 1275 ref. Respondents have neither alleged nor do their termination letters state that their services have been terminated on account of misconduct. Consequently, neither any constitutional protection nor issuance of show cause notice or…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492