Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

2006 PLC (C

2006 PLC (C.S.) 1197

[Punjab Service Tribunal]

Before Muhammad Afzal, Member-I

MUHAMMAD JAMIL

Versus

DEPUTY DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (MALE) and 2 others

Appeal No.2136 of 2005, decided on 28th June, 2006.

Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975---

----R. 4---Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4---Dismissal from service---Appeal to Service Tribunal---Appellant was proceeded against on allegations that his appointment as P.T.C. Teacher was dubious and bogus and by order dated 22-5-2000 he was dismissed from service on false appointment orders under Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975---Departmental appeal filed by appellant against order of his dismissal from service having been dismissed as time barred and also on merits, appellant had filed appeal to Service Tribunal with contention that departmental appeal filed by him was not time-barred because he had filed original appeal against order of his dismissal from service dated 22-5-2000 on 29-5-2000 and that he had proof/evidence of postal receipt because said appeal was sent by registered post---Authorities, in their parawise comments, had not clearly denied that appellant had never submitted any representation dated 29-5-2000 to challenge impugned orders dated 22-5-2000---Since there was factual controversy as to whether appellant had made a representation in time i.e. 29-5-2000 case was remanded to Appellate Authority to first verify the facts after consulting the record of concerned Authority and then take a fresh decision; if it was found that appellant had filed representation in time, his departmental appeal would be decided on merits after granting personal hearing to appellant.

Pervaiz Inayat Malik, for appellant.

Rana Muhammad Yasin, District Attorney for Respondents

. Allah Din, Litigation Officer, on behalf of Respondent No.2.

Naeem Akhtar, Litigation Officer, on behalf of Respondent No.1.

Date of hearing: 28th June, 2006.

JUDGMENT

MUHAMMAD AFZAL (MEMBER-1).---Appellant claims to have been appointed as PTC Teacher through orders dated 26-1-1993 and also claims to have been transferred to another school on 7-6-1996. However, he was proceeded against on the allegations that his appointment as PTC Teacher was dubious and bogus and consequently through orders dated 22-5-2000, he was dismissed from service on account of fake appointment orders under Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975. Appellant states that thereafter, he filed departmental appeal in time on 29-5-2000, but the same was not decided i.e. neither rejected nor accepted. In the meantime, the old system of Education Directorates was abolished and School Education was devolved upon District Governments. The office of EDO (Edu.) replaced the Education Directorate at district level. It is maintained by the appellant that he kept sending reminder after reminder to the concerned authority/EDO(E) Lahore or EDO (E) Sheikhupura, but no action was taken and finally through orders dated 27-7-2005 his departmental appeal was dismissed as time barred and also on merits-hence present appeal in this Tribunal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued the case at length, maintaining that it was clear from plain reading of final/impugned orders that the appellate authority had on the one hand admitted that the appellant was appointed as PTC Teacher and also transferred from time to time, and, on the other hand, the orders of appointment were being considered fake and bogus. It is contended that this contradiction in the impugned orders indicated that the departmental appellate authority had not decided departmental appeal of the appellant with precision and clarity of mind. It is further stated that the appointment of the appellant as PTC teacher was not bogus. Appellant was appointed properly by the competent authority, he was qualified and that the Army Survey Team had also at that time i.e. in the year 1999, declared the appointment of the appellant as genuine. It is next pointed out that proceedings were conducted and concluded against the appellant under Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 at the time when Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1999 had come into force. As proceedings had been concluded under a wrong law the same stood vitiated. It is also pointed out that discrimination was being made in the case of the appellant since one Sarfraz Ahmad PTC teacher had been reinstated in service on grounds of Chief Minister's directive, whereas he has also, similarly, been removed from service earlier. Main thrust of arguments of learned counsel for the appellant is that departmental appeal filed by the appellant was not time-barred because the appellant had filed original appeal against the impugned orders of his dismissal from service on 29-5-2000 and he had proof/evidence of postal receipt because the said appeal was sent by registered post. It is also pointed out that if the appeal was not decided by the concerned authority in time, the appellant could not be considered responsible and that he had only been sending reminders thereafter and that any reminder sent by him could not be considered as fresh representation.

3. Respondents have opposed the appeal, maintaining that the appointment of the appellant was illegal and also bogus. It is further stated that if the appellant had made any representation in May, 2000, the same was never received, or at-least the same was not available in record. It is next pointed out that the appellant has sent a representation, dated 4-7-2005 to challenge the orders passed in the year, 2000 which was considered time-barred and thus rejected on limitation in accordance with law.

4. I have considered averments from both sides in juxtaposition and also perused the relevant record as made available. I find that the concerned respondents, in their parawise comments, have not clearly denied that the appellant had never submitted any representation dated 29-5-2000 to challenge the impugned orders, dated 22-5-2000. I agree with learned counsel for the appellant that the representation,

dated 4-7-2005 to which reference is made by the departmental appellate authority is in fact a reminder. It' any reminder was addressed by the appellant to a wrong office, it was the duty of the said office to redirect the same to the relevant office. Since there is factual controversy about whether the appellant had made a representation in time i.e. on 29-5-2000, case is remanded to the concerned appellate authority to first verify the facts after consulting the record in the defunct office of the then Deputy Director (Administration), Elementary Education, Lahore. It was not sufficient to say that according to record in his office, previous appeal filed by the appellant was not traceable. After all, the earlier record in the office of Directorate of Elementary Education, Lahore, would have been transferred to some successor-office. The said authority shall take a fresh decision and in case, as a result of scrutiny and verification of record, it was found that the appellant had filed representation in time, his departmental appeal shall be decided on merits after granting personal hearing to the appellant. In order to enable the said authority to take a fresh decision within the reasonable span of time, impugned orders, dated 27-7-2005, are set aside.

5. Appeal is disposed of in above terms.

H.B.T./20/PST Order accordingly.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from SERVICE-TRIBUNAL-PUNJAB
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant