2013 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ATIR MAHMOOD, J.

Through this consolidated judgment, I intend to dispose of Writ Petition No.266 of 2013/BWP and Writ Petition No.224 of 2013/BWP as common questions of law and fact are involved therein.

2. Facts of both the cases are the same. The petitioners were appointed as Senior Elementary School Educator (SESE) in BPS-14 vide order dated 30-3-2007 on contract basis initially for a period of five years which was extended for a further period of five years and performed their duties till 31-12-2012 when respondent No.1 vide order dated 31-12-2012 terminated their services on the allegation that their appointment letters were fake which order has been impugned in these writ petitions.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the petitioners were appointed through bogus appointment letters, it was necessary for the respondents to hold a proper inquiry to look into the allegation and then reach a just and fair conclusion that the appointment of the petitioners are fake or otherwise. He admits that the petitioners were appointed through fake appointment letters but asserts that their services could not be terminated without holding a proper inquiry. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in cases titled "Executive District Officer (Edu), Rawalpindi and others v. Mst., Rizwana Kausar and 4 others (2011 SCMR 1581)," "The Secretary, Government of the Punjab, through Secretary, Health Department, Lahore and others v. Riaz-ul-Haq (1997 SCMR 1552)" and "Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P. Zakat/Social Welfare Department, Peshawar and another v. Saadullah Khan (1996 SCMR 413)." He prays that both the writ petitions in hand be allowed and the petitioners be re-instated into service while declaring the impugned termination letter dated 31-12-2012 illegal and unlawful. On the other hand, learned Law Officer submits that neither any advertisement was made for the posts in question nor the petitioners submitted applications for their appointment against the posts of SESE. He avers that the petitioners managed the appointment letters in their favour in connivance with the departmental authorities through fraudulent means and in this way, usurped the rights of lawful prospective candidates of these posts. He argues that the offer letter allegedly issued by Mst. Shahida Hafeez, Ex-DEO(W-EE), Bahawalnagar was under the fake signatures. He contends that no fraud committed by any person can be protected by the courts as it will encourage others to do the same rather than stopping them from using unfair means. He requests that this writ petition being devoid of any force be dismissed.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. It appears from the record that the factum of appointment of the petitioners through fraudulent means came into the knowledge of concerned authorities when a complaint was filed by one Munawar Hussain son of Barkat Ali before the Director Anti-Corruption, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur asserting that the appointment of the petitioners was result of bogus and fake orders. A fact finding report was obtained by the departmental authorities. After considering the fact finding report, the competent authority vide order dated 1-11-2012 dispensed with the requirement of further inquiry and directed the petitioners to appear before him for the purpose of personal hearing which was duly given to them whereafter the impugned order was passed. Relevant paragraph of the impugned order is as under:-- "The appointment of Educators of various categories were made school specific according to the recruitment policy 2006-07. Neither the vacancy of SESE (Arts) BS-14 of Government Girls E/S 199/8-R Tehsil Fortabbas was advertised nor the said so called Educator submitted her application for appointment as SESE (Arts) in BS 14 on contract basis. The offer letter has been shown to be issued under the fake signature of Mst. Shahida Hafeez EX-DEO (W-EE) Bahawalnagar. The entry of the dispatch register is also fabricated which is evident that the dispatch register was closed at serial No.1250 on 30-3-2007 whereas the dispatch No.1432-34 has been shown in the offer letter dated 30-3-2007. Thus the forgery rises to the surface of the dispatch register as well as relevant record of this office."

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has nowhere, either in writ petition or his arguments, asserted that the appointment orders were genuine and issued by the competent authority rather he has frankly admitted before this Court that the appointment orders were bogus and fake.

8. In the cases referred to by learned counsel for the petitioners, there is a fault on the part of the departmental authorities and not on that of the employees but in this case, the fault is admittedly on the part of the employees. This particular feature distinguishes the instant case from the cases referred to by learned counsel for the petitioners. I am guided by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled "Executive District Officer (Education), Rawalpindi v. Muhammad Younas (2007 SCMR 1835)". Relevant portion is as under:

"It is a settled law that when the basic order is without lawful authority then the superstructure shall have to fall on the ground automatically as law laid down by this Court in Yousaf Ali's case PLD 1958 SC

104. It is also a settled law that where the order of appointment was secured by fraud and misrepresentation then principle of locus poenitentiae is not attracted as law laid down by this Court in Jalal-ud-Din's case PLD 1992 SC 207."

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also not been able to rebut the contentions of learned Law Officer that the appointment letters through which the petitioners were inducted in service were fake ones being prepared wit+h fictitious signatures of the appointing authority.

10. In view of the above, both the writ petitions in hand are devoid of any merit, hence dismissed. SAK/S-79/L Petition dismissed.