2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Appeal against order dated 22‑11‑1999 vide which the appellant was removed from service. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as PTC Teacher at Government Primary School, Mehra Abad on 9‑3‑1993. On her request, she was transferred from Lodhran to Tehsil Yazman, District Bahawalpur on 24‑7‑1997 by the Director Public Instruction (EE), Punjab, Lahore. On 16‑10‑1999, she was given show‑cause notice for personal hearing before the District Education Officer (W‑EE), Bahawalpur and on 22‑11‑1999, she was removed from service on the ground that she was appointed without merit, contrary to the recruitment policy and non‑fulfilment of procedural formalities. Her departmental appeal was rejected by, the Director, of Education (W‑EE), Bahawalpur on 18‑4 2000. Hence, this appeal.

2. I have heard the Counsel for the appellant, District Attorney and have perused the record and parawise comments submitted by the respondents. I have also heard the Departmental Representative who was present on behalf of Respondent No.2.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was appointed on the recommendations of Tehsil/Markaz Education Committee, Lodhran on merit and after fulfilment of procedural formalities. She was transferred to Tehsil Yazman of Bahawalpur District after her marriage on her own request by the orders of Director Public Instruction (EE), Punjab, Lahore. The record about her appointment is at District Lodhran but the respondent has not bothered to check the record from Lodhran. Photocopies of Secondary School Certificate, PTC Certificate have been produced to prove that she possesses requisite qualification:

4. In his parawise, comments, the respondent No.2.has pointed out that the appointment of the appellant was got certified from District Education Officer (W‑EE), Lodhran who has reported vide, Letter No.4433, dated 3‑8‑1999 that the appellant was validly appointed vide No.556‑57, dated 2‑3‑1993 but this appointment is not according to merit

5. I have perused the photo copy of the letter dated 3‑8‑1999. It is not mentioned there how the appointment is not according to the merit.

6. The services of the appellant were terminated after issuing show -cause notice. No Authorised Officer was appointed. The removal from service is major penalty and calls for proceedings under Punjab Civil Servant (E&D) Rules, 1975. In this case, the 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 enquiry, 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. Thus, all the proceedings against the appellant were not taken in accordance with the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 and nullity in the eyes of law. I, therefore, accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders dated 22‑11‑1999 and 18‑4‑2000. The appellant is reinstated in service. The intervening period will be treated as Earned Leave of kind due to the appellant.

7. There will be no order as to costs. H.B.T./32/P:(S.Trib.) Appeal accepted.