Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

2004 P L C (C

2004 P L C (C.S.) 390

[Punjab Service Tribunal]

Before Riaz Kayani, Chairman and Ch. Muhammad Sarwar, Member‑I

Mst. NAZIA ANJUM and another

versus

THROUGH SECRETARY ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, LAHORE and 3 others

Appeals Nos.2425 and 2442' of 1999, decided on 28th January, 2002

Civil service‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑ Removal from service‑‑‑Reason for removal from service as given in the show‑cause notice was that the appointment was false, while in the removal order reason for removal was stated to be the submission of wrong domicile and delayed Medical Certificate by the civil servant‑‑‑, Reason of removal of another civil servant as given in show‑cause notice was that her appointment was fake, while in ‑the order of removal of service it was stated that her result of B.A., B.Ed. 'was declared subsequent to her selection as Elementary .English Teacher‑‑‑Different reasons, in circumstances, were given for removal of civil servants ,in show‑cause notices issued to them and in the orders of their removal‑‑ Both civil servants possessed requisite qualifications for appointment as Elementary English Teacher‑‑‑Submission of Domicile Certificate, and B.A., B.Ed. degree, etc. which otherwise were correct and were not proved to be tampered with, though late and after their appointment would not equip the Authority to take drastic action‑‑‑Reasons of removal of civil servants from service being not valid, order of their removal was set aside and they were ordered to be reinstated in ,service.

Pervaiz Inayat Malik and Muhammad Aslam for Appellants.

Khadim Hussain Sindhu, District Attorney for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 21st January, 2002.

JUDGMENT

RIAZ KAYANI (CHAIRMAN). ‑‑‑We intend, through this single judgment, to dispose of Appeal No.2425 of 1999 brought by Nazir Anjum and 2442 of 1999 brought by Ammara Jabeen, as they involve common questions of fact and of law.

APPEAL No.2425 OF' 1999

2. Appellant was appointed as Elementary English Teacher (EET) on 28‑12‑1995, She was served with a show‑cause notice asking her to show‑cause as to why her service be not terminated, as her appointment was fake. In the order of removal from service dated 13‑2‑1999., however, reasons for removal from service are given to be wrong domicile and delayed medical certificate. Appeal was dismissed on 4‑8‑1999 stating that she submitted her domicile certificate after her appointment.

APPEAL No.2442 OF 1999

3. Appellant was appointed as Elementary English Teacher (EET) on 28‑12‑1995. She received a show‑cause notice stating that her appointment was fake. However, in the order of removal from service dated 13‑2‑1999, it was stated that her result of B.A. was declared on 27‑1‑1996, whereas she was selected as English Teacher on 28‑12‑1995.

4. Both the appellants have challenged order of removal as well as declining their appeals by the appellate authority.

5. We have heard the arguments .of the respective counsel and have gone through the record.

6. In Appeal No.2425 of 1999, we find different reasons of removal given in the show‑cause notice and in the order of removal requisite qualifications were B.A., B.Ed. for appointment as E.E.T. which the appellant possessed. Submission of domicile certificate, which otherwise is correct and not tampered with, although late and after the appointment as E.E.T. would not equip the 'authority to take drastic action of removing the teacher, otherwise possessed of the requisite qualification, from service. It seems, Authorities were finding excuse/pretext to remove the appellant from service. There is no allegation of misconduct and inefficiency.

7. Similarly, in Appeal No.2442 of 1999, again different reasons are given for removing the appellant from service in the show‑cause notice and in the order of removal. Appellant at the time of her appointment bad taken the examination of B.A. and passed it in flying colours though after her appointment. The appointment could be said to conditional, subject to passing of examination. Appellant has served the department for 9 years without any complaint from any quarter. We do not find that the excuse given for removing her from service to be a valid ground for taking drastic action. We, therefore, accept the appeals, set aside the impugned orders and direct the reinstatement of the appellants in service. However, intervening period shall be treated as leave of the kind due.

H.B.T./120/PST Appeals accepted.

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