2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Date of hearing: 27th March, 2001. This appeal is directed against an order dated 4‑10‑1999 of D.E.O. Sheikhupura respondent No.3 whereby the appellant has been dismissed from service.

2. The relevant facts of the case are that on 28‑10‑1993 the appellant has been appointed as PTC Teacher on the recommendations of Tehsil Recruitment Committee Sheikhupura. He served the Department in different schools in District Sheikhupura. On 17‑5‑1999 respondent No.3 issued him a show‑cause notice under PCS (E&D) Rules, 1975 on the allegation that his appointment letter was bogus. The appellant submitted his reply to the show cause notice which was found unsatisfactory and the respondent No.3 dismissed him from service vide the impugned order dated 4‑10‑1999. On 21‑10‑1999 the appellant filed a departmental appeal before Director Elementary Education, Lahore respondent No.1 which he rejected vide his order dated 29‑2‑2000. Hence the present appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal.

3. In support of his appeal the counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant‑ had been recruited after observing the codal formalities and as such his appointment letter could not be declared bogus' particularly when this letter has also been entered in the despatch register of the appointing authority, that the appellant possessed the academic and professional qualification for appointment as PTC Teacher and his certificates had been duly verified to be genuine; that no regular enquiry had been held before imposing upon the appellant the major penalty of dismissal from service which penalty was liable to be quashed on this count alone.

4. Respondents have filed written objections. The Department has taken the plea that the appellant was appointed under political influence ignoring the rules of the Department and consequently the impugned order was valid and‑justified.

5. Arguments were heard and record perused. Department seems to have no case at all. In the show‑cause notice, the allegation was that the appointment order of the appellant was bogus. The grounds of this allegation have nowhere been disclosed as to how the appointment order was bogus. The dismissal order is again totally stereotyped without referring to the facts of the present case and without mentioning the exact evidence which led the "Authority" to impose the major penalty of dismissing the appellant from service. It states that the Authority had considered the statement of prosecution witnesses, defence produced by the accused and the report of the Authoritised Officer. As there was no regular enquiry, there could not be any statement of prosecution witness. The conclusion is thus inevitable that "Authority". has merely signed a cyclostyled order of dismissal without applying his mind at all. Deputy Director, (Adorn.) Directorate of Elementary Education, Lahore Division respondent No.2 has also proceeded to dismiss the departmental appeal vide his cyclostyled Order No.259/ADMN II‑III, dated 29‑2‑2000 by merely adding in the blank space‑‑ "order was not issued on merit. There is no record available in the concerned office and appointment is not correct. Thus an authority declared it bogus. " It shows that even the Appellate Authority has not cared to give any cogent reason for dismissing, the appeal.

6. In the joint written objections, the departmental authorities have introduced new reasons for dismissing the appellant from service. The joint comments state that the appellant was appointed under political influence and in violation of Department's Recruitment Policy. But this generalized assertion has again remained unsubstantiated. There is no detail of the so called political influence nor is there any mention as to which part of Recruitment Policy was violated and how. On the other hand, the record placed on file, which has not been challenged by the Department, clearly establishes that the appellant possessed the requisite qualification (Matriculation certificate as well as PTC) prescribed for appointment as PTC teacher and the DEO as the, Appointing Authority issued his appointment order on the recommendation of the concerned Recruitment Committee.

7. For the above discussion, the appeal is allowed with cost. The impugned orders dated 4‑10‑1999 and 29‑2‑2000 are set aside and the appellant is re‑instated in service with full back‑benefits, subject to the right of the Department to ascertain as to whether during the period commencing from the date of dismissal till his reinstatement, the appellant was engaged in any gainful employment. H.B.T./118/PST/ Appeal allowed