2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

JUSTICE (RETD.) RUSTAM ALI MALIK (CHAIRMAN).

According to the contents of memorandum of appeal, the appellant was appointed as elementary School Teacher in Government Girls High School, Rayya Khan by respondent No. 1 on 21-3-1996 on the recommendations of the concerned Selection Authority but due to non-availability of post she was adjusted at Government Girls Elementary School, Kullah Mandiala by respondent No.1 vide his order dated 24-11-1996 and from there she was "subsequently transferred to Government Girls Elementary School, Malook Pur by respondent No.1 vide his order, dated 19-6-1999. The appellant has averred that on the basis of some false and frivolous complaint, respondent No.1 vide his letter, dated 19-5-2004 appointed Mst. Tabassum Sahar, the Senior Headmistress, Government Muslim Girls High School, Narowal as Enquiry Officer and who conducted an inquiry in a slipshod manner submitted the inquiry report, dated 15-10-2004. On the basis of the said inquiry report, respondent No.2 issued a notice for personal hearing under section 3(2) of the Punjab Removal Prom Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 vide order, dated 26-3-2005 and to which she submitted her reply on 1-4-2005 to respondent No.2. However, vide order, dated 18-5-2005, respondent No.2 removed her from service and the order of removal was communicated to her in her school on 2-6-2005 while she was performing her duty. Aggrieved of the said order, dated 18-5-2005, passed by respondent No.2 whereby she had been removed from service, she filed are presentation/departmental appeal, dated 3-6-2005 before respondent No.3 which was rejected by him vide his order, dated 7-10-2005. Hence she had recourse to this Tribunal.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant was not simply a matriculate but also possesses three years post-matric diploma in Vocational education and that a number of other female teachers possessing the same qualification are still working against the post of S.V.T./E.S.T. in the District. He has argued that the original impugned order had been passed by respondent No.2 who was not a Notified District Education Officer but was Senior Headmaster of the High School However, inspite of it, he was illegally directed by the District Coordination Officer, Narowal to continue performing his duties as District Education Officer (SE/EE), Narowal fill further orders. He has argued that after dispensing with the regular inquiry under section 5(4) of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, the competent authority should have issued a proper notice to him instead of issuing a show-cause notice for personal hearing. He has further contended that the appellant cannot be held responsible for the faults of the appellate authority as the said faults cannot be attributed to her; that no formal inquiry into the matter was held and the major penalty of removal from service was imposed on the appellant on the basis of merely a preliminary/fact finding inquiry and which is clearly illegal and unjust. He has contended that even if it be assumed that her appointment was illegal and against rules, even then the fault could be attributed only to the Appointing Authority and not to her and hence the impugned orders being illegal are liable to be set aside.

3. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney has argued on behalf of the respondents that the requisite qualification for the post of S.V.T./E.S.T. was B.A.,B.Ed. whereas the appellant was only a Matriculate and it could not be assumed that the District Recruitment Committee, Narowal could have recommended her for appointment. He has argued that the appointment letter of the appellant was self made/bogus and even the transfer order, dated 7-9-1998 had been forged. He has submitted that respondent No.2 had exercised the powers of the District Education Officer as he had been given the additional charge of the said post by the District Coordination Officer. He has argued that the appellant had managed her appointment order by deceiving the competent authority and also that she did not possess at all the requisite qualification for the post of S.V. Teacher and that a fact finding inquiry was conducted on the issue before passing the order dated 18-5-2005 and as a result of which her appointment order as well as the transfer order were found to be bogus and self-made.

4. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced from both sides.

5. The allegations against the appellant as per the show-cause notice dated 26-3-2005 (copy of which exists at pages 25 and 26 of this appeal) were to the following effect:-- (i) The required qualification for the post of S.V.T. as indicated in the relevant advertisement was F.A.,C.T. whereas she was simply Matriculate. (ii) Her came appeared no where in merit list. (iii) Her appointment order No.3811 dated 21-3-1996 and subsequent transfer order No.1891 dated 24-11-1996 were found to be bogus with fictitious despatch numbers. (iv) The relevant record does not confirm her first joining/presence at anytime in her original place of posting mentioned in the so-called appointment orders, showing thereby that she had entered Government service through fraudulent means.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant has been unable to convince me that the appellant possessed the requisite qualification for the post of S.V. Teacher or Elementary School Teacher. Even though she possessed the certificate in Computer Programme and a certificate from Punjab Board of Technical Education regarding vocational training or a Vocational Teachers Training diploma or a certificate of Arabi Fazil, it would not mean that she possessed the requisite qualification of B.A., B.Ed. for the post in question. Before the impugned order had been issued, a preliminary/fact finding inquiry had been conducted into the matter. It is correct that a regular inquiry was not conducted in this case but as even the appointment orders of the appellant were found to be rake, a regular inquiry in this case was hardly required. The report of Mst. Tabassum Sahar, Senior Headmistress, Government Muslim Girls High School, Narowal who had conducted a fact finding inquiry exists at page 24 of this file and according to which she had summoned Mrs. Shafqat Ara, Incharge Headmistress, Government Girls High School, Rayya Khan and inquired frown her about the appointment of Sajida Shafi, appellant, in her school and also about her joining the post, whereupon she had informed her in writing that neither any appointment orders of a teacher of this name had been issued nor there is any record concerning her joining duty in the said school. Hence her appointment orders were found to be fake. Even though the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant may have some legal flaws but the impugned orders which are otherwise justified cannot be set aside on the basis of mere technicalities.

7. In view of what has been stated above, the appeal filed by the appellant before this Tribunal has no basis and the same is accordingly dismissed.

8. The parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./22/PST Appeal dismissed.