Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ANWAR-UD-DIN VS Respondent: GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB
2002 P L C (C
2002 P L C (C.S.) 1602
[Punjab Service Tribunal]
Before Sardar Alam Khan, Member, II
ANWAR‑UD‑DIN.
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary Education (EE), Civil Secretariat, Lahore and 6 others
Appeal No. 1700 of 2001, heard on 30th January, 2002.
Civil service--------
‑‑‑‑Termination of service and imposition of penalty‑‑‑Applications for posts of P.T.C. Teachers were duly invited‑‑‑Applicants, including civil servant, were interviewed and were selected on merits‑‑‑Civil servant alongwith others was recruited on merits, but after more than six years from his appointment, he was not only terminated from service, but also was directed to deposit huge amount received by him as salaries etc., within period of his employment on ground that he secured appointment during ban on recruitment‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Civil servant had been penalized for no fault on his part as it was duty of Appointing Authority to examine if any ban existed at the time of issuing. appointment letter to civil servant‑‑‑Civil servant could not be condemned for any irregularity committed by the Authority concerned‑‑‑Appointing Authority committing an irregularity, could not be allowed to turn around and take benefit of its irregularity by penalizing civil servant‑‑‑Orders passed against civil servant were set aside and he was. ordered to be reinstated with back benefits.
Pervaiz Inayat Malik for Appellant.
Ch. Manzoor Hussain, D.A. for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 30th January, 2002.
JUDGMENT
Briefly, the relevant facts are that on 3‑8‑1993 Deputy District Education Officer (M‑EE), Pind Dadan Khan District Jehlum appointed the appellant Anwar‑ud‑Din as P.T.C. teacher on the approval of Departmental Recruitment Committee. He continued working in different schools. However, on 30‑11‑1999 Deputy District Education Officer (M), Pind Dadan Khan in his capacity as Authorised Officer issued him a notice for showing cause as to why a penalty under Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules be not . imposed upon him for securing appointments during ban. The appellant denied the charge which was not found satisfactory. On 14‑1‑1999, District Education Officer (M‑EE), Jehlum imposed upon the appellant the following penalties:‑‑
(i) Service terminated with immediate effect.
(ii) A sum of Rs.1,25,219.40 be recovered and deposited into Government Treasury.
The appellant preferred departmental appeal and thereafter has approached the Punjab Service Tribunal through the present service appeal.
2. Respondents have filed written objections. Arguments have been heard and record perused. Learned counsel for the appellant has mainly argued that the appellant has been penalised for no fault of his. It was the duty of the appointing authority to examine if there had been any ban at the time of issuing the appointment letter of the appellant. The appellant could not be condemned for this irregularity, if any, committed by the then Deputy District Education Officer, District Attorney and, Departmentally Representative have not been able to controvert this plea.
3. Departmental Authorities in their written objections have admitted that applications were duly invited for filing the posts of P.T.C. teachers. Departmental Recruitment Committee received 261 applications. The applicants were duly interviewed and 93 candidates were selected on merit appellant was none of them. Viewed in this context, the appellant has been duly recruited on merit. The contention of the Departmental Authorities that there was a ban on appointments during 25‑5‑1993 to 10‑8‑1993 and as such the appellant could not be appointed on 3‑8‑1993 despite merit. The appellant could not be expected to know the period when any ban existed on the recruitment. He had not recruited him himself and, therefore, cannot be 'punished. It is a settled principle of law that the appointing authority who are committing an irregularity, cannot be allowed to turn around and take benefit of this irregularity by panalising a Civil Servant. I therefore, hold that the impugned order is not tenable.
4. For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 14‑1‑1999 is set aside with the result that the appellant is re?instated in service with back benefits. There shall be no order as to the cost.
H.B.T./85/PST???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed.