2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Ch. Manzoor Hussain, D.A. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th January, 2002. Briefly, the relevant facts are that on 3‑8‑1993 Deputy District Education Officer (M‑EE), Pind Dadan Khan District Jehlum appointed the appellant Anwar‑ud‑Din as P.T.C. teacher on the approval of Departmental Recruitment Committee. He continued working in different schools. However, on 30‑11‑1999 Deputy District Education Officer (M), Pind Dadan Khan in his capacity as Authorised Officer issued him a notice for showing cause as to why a penalty under Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules be not . imposed upon him for securing appointments during ban. The appellant denied the charge which was not found satisfactory. On 14‑1‑1999, District Education Officer (M‑EE), Jehlum imposed upon the appellant the following penalties:‑‑ (i) Service terminated with immediate effect. (ii) A sum of Rs.1,25,219.40 be recovered and deposited into Government Treasury. The appellant preferred departmental appeal and thereafter has approached the Punjab Service Tribunal through the present service appeal.

2. Respondents have filed written objections. Arguments have been heard and record perused. Learned counsel for the appellant has mainly argued that the appellant has been penalised for no fault of his. It was the duty of the appointing authority to examine if there had been any ban at the time of issuing the appointment letter of the appellant. The appellant could not be condemned for this irregularity, if any, committed by the then Deputy District Education Officer, District Attorney and, Departmentally Representative have not been able to controvert this plea.

3. Departmental Authorities in their written objections have admitted that applications were duly invited for filing the posts of P.T.C. teachers. Departmental Recruitment Committee received 261 applications. The applicants were duly interviewed and 93 candidates were selected on merit appellant was none of them. Viewed in this context, the appellant has been duly recruited on merit. The contention of the Departmental Authorities that there was a ban on appointments during 25‑5‑1993 to 10‑8‑1993 and as such the appellant could not be appointed on 3‑8‑1993 despite merit. The appellant could not be expected to know the period when any ban existed on the recruitment. He had not recruited him himself and, therefore, cannot be 'punished. It is a settled principle of law that the appointing authority who are committing an irregularity, cannot be allowed to turn around and take benefit of this irregularity by panalising a Civil Servant. I therefore, hold that the impugned order is not tenable.

4. For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 14‑1‑1999 is set aside with the result that the appellant is re?instated in service with back benefits. There shall be no order as to the cost. H.B.T./85/PST???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed.