2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

RIAZ KAYANI (CHAIRMAN). ‑‑‑We intend, through this single judgment, to dispose of Appeal No.2425 of 1999 brought by Nazir Anjum and 2442 of 1999 brought by Ammara Jabeen, as they involve common questions of fact and of law.

2. Appellant was appointed as Elementary English Teacher (EET) on 28‑12‑1995, She was served with a show‑cause notice asking her to show‑cause as to why her service be not terminated, as her appointment was fake. In the order of removal from service dated 13‑2‑1999., however, reasons for removal from service are given to be wrong domicile and delayed medical certificate. Appeal was dismissed on 4‑8‑1999 stating that she submitted her domicile certificate after her appointment.

3. Appellant was appointed as Elementary English Teacher (EET) on 28‑12‑1995. She received a show‑cause notice stating that her appointment was fake. However, in the order of removal from service dated 13‑2‑1999, it was stated that her result of B.A. was declared on 27‑1‑1996, whereas she was selected as English Teacher on 28‑12‑1995.

4. Both the appellants have challenged order of removal as well as declining their appeals by the appellate authority.

5. We have heard the arguments .of the respective counsel and have gone through the record.

6. In Appeal No.2425 of 1999, we find different reasons of removal given in the show‑cause notice and in the order of removal requisite qualifications were B.A., B.Ed. for appointment as E.E.T. which the appellant possessed. Submission of domicile certificate, which otherwise is correct and not tampered with, although late and after the appointment as E.E.T. would not equip the 'authority to take drastic action of removing the teacher, otherwise possessed of the requisite qualification, from service. It seems, Authorities were finding excuse/pretext to remove the appellant from service. There is no allegation of misconduct and inefficiency.

7. Similarly, in Appeal No.2442 of 1999, again different reasons are given for removing the appellant from service in the show‑cause notice and in the order of removal. Appellant at the time of her appointment bad taken the examination of B.A. and passed it in flying colours though after her appointment. The appointment could be said to conditional, subject to passing of examination. Appellant has served the department for 9 years without any complaint from any quarter. We do not find that the excuse given for removing her from service to be a valid ground for taking drastic action. We, therefore, accept the appeals, set aside the impugned orders and direct the reinstatement of the appellants in service. However, intervening period shall be treated as leave of the kind due. H.B.T./120/PST Appeals accepted.