2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

CH. IJAZ AHMED, J.

Appellant filed C.P. No.2019 of 2005 wherein appellant has sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore dated 22-7-2005 wherein order of her removal by the competent authority and rejection of her representation by the appellate authority were not set aside. The petition was fixed before this Court on 21-3-2006 and leave was granted in the following terms :

"The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was graduate at the time of her appointment. Thereafter, she further improved her educational qualification as M.A., B-Ed. and C.T. during her service. The order dated 4-7-2003 passed by Respondent No.1 of the removal of the petitioner from service was not sustainable at law inasmuch as there was no concealment or misrepresentation of any material facts on the part of the petitioner who had rendered satisfactory service before her removal from service on 4-7-2003. It was lastly submitted that the quantum of punishment did not commensurate the nature of the charge. Leave to appeal is granted to consider, inter alia, the above and other submissions of the learned counsel."

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law in view of the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer against her. Inquiry was conducted in violation of mandatory provisions of Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules. The appellant was inducted in the service by the competent authority in accordance with the law as is evident from the inquiry report and she was removed from service after 10 years. This fact was not considered by Service Tribunal in the impugned judgment.

3. Learned Law Officer submitted that appellant secured her appointment by playing fraud with the Department as her appointment letter did not exist in their record. He has vehemently supported the impugned judgment.

4. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the impugned order dated 4-7-2003 wherein the appellant was removed from service. "Whereas Mst. Raheela Arjumand, SST/Headmistress, Government Shah Din Aslam Middle School Shad Bagh, Lahore was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry sent her report with the recommendation that Service Record of the teacher found bogus, i.e. she was appointed PTC, regular by Mirza Muhammad Shafi the then Deputy District Education Officer (M) Lahore City vide No.1020/E-I dated 10-5-1993 while she was untrained but not verified and she received salary as regular teacher. The appointment orders are not verified by the Deputy District Education Officer concerned, domicile was not available.

5. Mere reading of the aforesaid order clearly envisages that appellant was appointed as untrained teacher but she received salary for regular teacher. During her service she had improved her qualification as M.A., B-Ed. and C.T. and also gained experience as a teacher for 10 years. The impugned judgment is not in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in various pronouncements. See:

(i) Zulfiqar Ali's case 2006 SCMR 678, (ii) Abdul Waheed's case 2004 SCMR 303, (iii) Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P.'s case 1996 SCMR 413, (iv) Abdul Hafeea Abbasi's case 2002 SCMR 1034. The relevant observation from the Abdul Hafeez Abbasi's case is as follows:

"We have noted in number of cases that Departmental Authorities do show haste at the time of making such appointments when directives are issued to them by the persons who are in the helm of affairs without daring to point out to them that the directions are not implementable being contrary to law as well prevalent Rules and Regulations. In fact such obedience is demonstrated by the concerned officers of the Departments to please the Authorities governing the country just to earn their time being pleasures but on the change of regime they do show speed in undoing illegal actions which they themselves have accomplished in the previous regime and due to their such illegal acts the employees who were appointed suffer badly without any fault on their part and then even nobody bothers for their future career. Therefore, we are of the opinion that in such situation besides proceedings against the beneficiaries of so-called illegal appointments the officers who were responsible for implementing illegal directives should also be held equally responsible and severe action should be taken against them so in future it may serve as deterrent for other like-minded persons. This Court in an identical case declined to grant leave to appeal in the case of Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P. 1996 SCMR 413 and observed that it is disturbing to note that in this case petitioner No.2 had himself been guilty of making irregular appointment on what has been described "purely temporary basis". The petitioners have now turned around and terminated his service due to irregularity and violation of rule 10(2) (ibid). The premise, to say the least, is utterly untenable. The case of the petitioners was not that the respondent lacked requisite qualification. The petitioners themselves appointed him on temporary basis in violation of the rules for reasons best known to them. Now they cannot be allowed to take benefit of their lapses in order to terminate the services of the respondent merely because they have themselves committed irregularity in violating the procedure governing the appointments."

6. It is settled proposition of law that judgment of this Court is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Articles 189-190 of the Constitution. It is settled law that Judge must wear all the laws of the country on the sleeve of his robe and failure of the counsel as to properly advise him is not a complete excuse in the matter as law laid down by this Court in Muhammad Sarwar's case PLD 1969 SC 278.

7. The learned Service Tribunal had decided the case in violation of the dictum laid down by this Court in the aforesaid judgments and even without perusing the record after application of mind as evident from the operative part of the order of department dated 4-7-2003 reproduced herein above. Mere reading of the impugned judgment, it is crystal clear that the learned Service Tribunal had decided the case without application of mind which is condition precedent in view of law laid down by this Court in G.M. Sikdar's case PLD 1970 SC 158 and Mollah Ejahar Ali's case PLD 1970 SC 173.

8. In view of what has been discussed above this appeal is accepted and the impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal is set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant without back benefit of any salary as she did not perform any duties. However, she is entitled other benefits in accordance with law, if any. M.H./I-21/SC Appeal allowed.