2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

RIAZ KAYANI (CHAIRMAN). ‑‑‑Through this single judgment we intend to dispose of Appeal No.1260 of 2001 brought by Tanveer Ahmad and Appeal No‑383 of 2000 brought by Shafqat Naeem, as they involve common question of law and fact.

2. Tanveer Ahmad was inducted as PTC teacher on 14‑3‑1996 possessing the requisite qualification, who was removed from service through an omnibus order on 6‑3‑1999 on the ground that his appointment was bogus. Appeal filed by the appellant was rejected on 28‑12‑2000 on the ground that his name after scrutiny, was not included in the approved list of District Recruitment Committee, Sheikhupura, and that no record of his appointment was available in the concerned office.

3. Appellant, Shafqat Naeem, on the other hand, also appointed as PTC teacher on 14‑3‑1996 was similarly removed vide order dated 6‑3‑1999. In the appeal, he admitted receipt of show‑cause notice. His appeal too was rejected on 18‑12‑2000 by the Deputy Director (Admn.), Directorate of Elementary Education, Lahore Division, Lahore, on the same ground as that of Tanveer Ahmad, appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant apart from other documents stated that his case was exactly identical, with the appeals of the other appellants dealt with by Division Bench of this Tribunal vide consolidated judgment passed on 4th February, 2002/11‑2‑2002 allowing the appeals and ordering a de novo enquiry.

5. We have heard the respective counsel and have also perused the record.

6. The Departmental Representative who was present with record was put a question by us whether the dispatch number affixed on the appointment letter corresponded with the number in the dispatch register, the answer was in the affirmative. Next question put to him was to explain us to how the appointment of the appellants was termed as bogus. No suitable reply was given. A bogus, fraudulent or a forged appointment letter may be manipulated by forging signatures of the Appointing Authority or with the connivance of the Appointing Authority or by manipulation of the record or by any other conceivable method. No such detail was provided, meaning thereby that no enquiry was held to determine this factual controversy. The assertion of the counsel for the appellant is certainly not without force when it is contended that the appellant served the Department for three years and without holding any regular enquiry, and in one case even not having received the show cause notice, the appellants were unceremoniously shown the door of exit. We are guided by the case of Gohar Rehman v. Health Department reported in 2001 SCMR 1128 wherein the apex Court held that the bare' and minimum requirement of law, was to serve the erring incumbent with at least a show‑cause notice and an opportunity be provided to him to be heard by the Authority before passing the impugned order. In the instant appeals, from the order of the Authority, it becomes manifest that a decision was already taken that the appellants secured their appointments through bogus means. In other words, the cart was placed before the horse and the principles of natural justice were flagrantly violated. The assertion of the Departmental Representative that no appointments were made in the year 1996, is belied by his further oral information, laid before the Tribunal, that the Chairman, District Recruitment Committee, a former Deputy Commissioner, disowned having recruited a number of PTC teachers for the year 1996. We have absolutely no documents or evidence before us as to how teachers recruited in the year 1996 were latter on disowned by the Chairman 9f District Recruitment Committee once having appended his signatures to the list of teachers selected. Whatever is said, nothing but hearsay, whose benefit will only go to the appellants. The charges brought against the appellants were on an absolute factual plinth which could only be resolved through a regular enquiry, in which witnesses were to be examined proving the prosecution case, allowing chance to the appellants to cross‑examine the witnesses after the witnesses were administered oath by the Enquiry Officer, ensuring that they shall speak the truth. The appellants definitely have made out a case for interference. We therefore, accept their appeals, direct their reinstatement in service with a further direction to the Authority to hold a de novo enquiry strictly III accordance with law. After the inquiry, the Authority shall determine the treatment to be given to the intervening period of the appellants from their date of removal upto their date of reinstatement. H.B.T./T‑127/PST Appeal accepted accordingly.