2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as S.V. Teacher in Government High School Tahli Talbani, Tehsil Khairpur Tamewali, District Bahawalpur on 30‑9‑1993 after the selection by the District Recruitment Committee, Bahawalpur. On 15‑3‑1995, the appellant was given show‑cause notice on the ground that he acquired service through bogus and illegal means. Vide impugned order dated 16‑4‑1995, the appellant alongwith 14 others were removed from service because they were not recruited according to merit policy. He preferred appeal to the Director Education (EE), Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur on 17‑4‑1995 which was not decided. Hence this appeal.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, District Attorney and have perused the record and comments submitted by the respondents.

3. Respondent No.l in the parawise comments of the appeal has written that merit list of the candidates for the post of S.V. Teacher of District Bahawalpur was prepared on 30‑9‑1993. The appellant was given 1Q marks for experience and he was placed at Serial No.3 in the list. The Director of Education was informed that appointment of the appellant was illegal because he was given 10 marks for experience without having any past teaching experience. The Inquiry Committee comprising of Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, District Education Officer, Bahawalnagar and Rana Sarwar Sajid, Deputy Headmaster, Government S.D. High School, Bahawalpur was appointed to probe into the matter. The appellant failed to produce original experience certificate. Copies of the enquiry report and merit list were placed with the comments.

4. I have perused the copy of inquiry report of Inquiry Committee. According to the report, the appellant was heard on 12‑2‑1995. The appellant stated that he had one year's experience certificate but he could not produce the certificate. It is further written in the report that the appellant obtained 68 marks and was placed at Serial No.3 of merit list. If 10 marks of experience are deducted, he will be placed at Serial No.35 of the merit list and if it is admitted that he had experience of one year, he will get 4 marks of experience and will get 62 marks and will be placed at Serial No. 15 of merit list whereas out of 56 candidates placed on the merit list, only Serial No. l to 10 were appointed.

5. In reply to the show‑cause notice, the appellant has written that his documents/ experience certificate were eaten up by the rates. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to a photo copy of appointment order dated .20‑2‑1987 of the appellant vide which he was appointed on temporary basis in "Nai Roshni School". Photo copy of experience certificate, attested by respectables of Chak No.62/F is placed on the file in which it is mentioned that the appellant worked at Model Primary School, Chak No.62/F under "Nai Roshni School Programme" from 20‑2‑1987 to 30‑6‑1989. He has thus, teaching experience of more than 2 years.

6. In the merit list he was given 10 marks for 2 years experience and? was placed at Serial No.3 of the merit list. The appellant is B.A. B.Ed. and possesses requisite qualification. His name appeared at Serial No.3 of the merit list of candidates and he was appointed by the competent authority on 30‑9‑1993. After 2 years, under political influence or ulterior motives, proceedings under disciplinary proceedings were taken against him. He was given show‑cause notice that he acquired service through bogus and illegal means. 7.His reply to the show‑cause notice was not considered and he was ‑removed vide impugned order without assigning the ground for dismissal.

8. The removal from service is major penalty and calls for proceedings under Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975. In this case, no Authorised Officer was appointed, authority acted as Authorised Officer. Under these circumstances, major penalty cannot be awarded. Under Rule 6(3) of Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 provides that if the Authorised Officer decides that it is necessary to hold an inquiry, he shall inform the accused forthwith by an order in writing of the action proposed to be taken in regard to him and the grounds of the action. But before issuing the show‑cause notice, the mandatory provisions were not complied with. The matter needed a thorough probe and calls for inquiry for which the accused official was to be charge‑sheeted. In this case neither charge‑sheet was given to the appellant nor inquiry was conducted and the appellant was not provided the opportunity of cross‑examining the inquiry witnesses. The alleged Inquiry Committee constituted by the authority and its report only amounts a preliminary inquiry and it does not take the place of a regular inquiry conducted after serving charge‑sheet. Respondent No. l has written in the comments that Director of Education came to know that appellant's appointment was illegal. Neither the name of the informer was mentioned by the Director Education nor the said informer was examined by the Inquiry Officer. Thus, all the proceedings against the appellant were not taken in accordance with Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 and are nullity in the eyes of law.

9. As discussed, the appellant was rightly given 10 marks of experience of more than two years, he was placed at Serial No.3 of the merit list and was regularly recruited. I, therefore, accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 16‑4‑1995. The appellant is reinstated in service. The intervening period will be treated as Earned Leave of the kind due to the appellant.

10. There will be no order as to costs. H.B.T./33/P.(S.Trib.)????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted.