Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ZAFAR IQBAL VS Respondent: DEPUTY DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (M), MANDI BAHAUDDIN
2002 P L C (C
2002 P L C (C.S.) 1461
[Punjab Service Tribunal]
Before Ch. Muhammad Sarwar, Member‑I
ZAFAR IQBAL
Versus
DEPUTY DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (M), MANDI BAHAUDDIN and 3 others
Appeal No.2553 of 2000, decided on 5th October, 2001.
Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Rr.4 & 5‑‑‑Removal from service‑‑‑Civil servant was appointed as P.T.C. Teacher by Competent Authority on recommendation of District Recruitment/Selection Committee but he was proceeded against for having been appointed without approval of Departmental Recruitment Committee and after issuing him show‑cause notice was removed from service after three years' satisfactory service without conducting regular inquiry against him‑‑‑Authority in passing order of removal of service of the civil servant having failed to apply independent mind, order of removal passed against the civil servant, was set aside and he was re‑instated in service.
1993 SCMR 603 and 1996 SCMR 413 ref.
Khadim Hussain Khokhar for Appellant.
District Attorney for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 14th September, 2001.
JUDGMENT
Briefly stated the facts leading to the appeal are that the appellant is Matric 1st Division, F.A. 2nd Division and PTC 1st Division and was appointed as PTC Teacher on 9‑1‑1996 on the recommendations of the Chairman, District Recruitment/Selection Committee by Deputy Education Officer (M), Mandi Bahauddin, respondent No. 1.
2. Proceedings under Punjab Civil Servants (E&B) Rules, 1975, were initiated against the appellant, on 24‑12‑1998 he was issued show‑cause notice on the following allegations.
(i) Appointment without approval of the Departmental Recruitment Committee.
(ii) Appointment Order's No. bogus.
3. The appellant in his reply dated 7‑1‑1999 denied the allegations and stated that he is Matric 1st Division, F.A. 2nd Division and PTC 1st Division and was appointed by the competent ‑Authority. The reply of the appellant was not considered satisfactory and District Education Officer (EE) Mandi Bahauddin on the recommendations of the Authorised Officer awarded him major penalty of removal from service on the ground that his appointment is fake/illegal. The departmental appeal was rejected on 21‑2‑2000 on the grounds that appointment orders were declared bogus by the concerned office and appointment order was issued without despatch number. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, District Attorney and have perused the record and objections to the memorandum of appeal submitted by the respondents,
5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant possesses requisite qualification. He was appointed by the competent Authority after the approval of the Chairman Departmental Recruitment/Selection f3 Committee. He served the department for about three years satisfactory and his services were terminated without conducting regular inquiry against him.
6. The respondents in their objections to the memorandum of appeal have stated that the appellant was appointed without recommendations of the Departmental Recruitment Committee. During the survey of Pakistan Army Team, it came to light that record of the despatch number of the appointment order was not available in the office from which it was issued.
7. The perusal of the appointment order, dated 9‑1‑1996 reveals that the appellant was appointed on the recommendation of the Chairman, Departmental Recruitment/Selection Committee by Deputy District Education Officer, Mandi Bahauddin/appointing authority who is also a Member of Recruitment/Selection Committee. The appellant is Matric 1st Division, F.A. 2nd Division and P.T.C. 1st Division. His name will definately fall in the merit list if and when it is prepared. The services of the appellant were terminated without conducting regular inquiry. It was held in 1993 SCMR 603 that for resolving controversial questions of fact, full fledged inquiry is to be made where evidence has to be recorded and opportunity of cross‑examination has to be given, otherwise findings recorded would be based more on conjectures than on evidence.
8. The respondent has proceeded against the appellant on the report of Pakistan Army Survey Team. The perusal of the impugned orders dated 9‑5‑2000 and 21‑12‑2000 reveals that respondents have not applied their independent mind by passing the impugned orders. Both the orders are thus nullity in the eyes of law.
9. It was held in 1996 SCMR 413 that where the departmental plea was not that the civil servant lacked requisite qualification for the post in question the department having itself appointed civil servant in violation of the rules could not be allowed to take benefits of its lapses in order to terminate the services of the civil servant merely because it has itself committed irregularity in violation the procedure during such appointment.
10. In the light of the above discussion, the appeal is accepted. The impugned orders dated 9‑5‑2000 and 21‑12‑2000 are set aside. The appellant is reinstated in service. The intervening period shall be treated as leave of the kind due. There will be no order as to costs.
H.B.T./66/PST Appeal accepted.