2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Muhammad Iqbal Khan for Appellant. Kh. Haider Ali, District Attorney for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th February, 1998. The appellant Muhammad Tufail Anjum was appointed as C.D. Superviser vide order, dated 10-1-1996 issued by Director Health Services, Multan (respondent No.2) and posted as such at Chak No. 182-9-L. The said appointment order and the services of the appellant were terminated vide endorsement, dated 27-1-1997 issued by District Health Officer, Sahiwal (respondent No.3) on the directions of respondent No.2 contained in his letter, dated 5-1-1997 which in turn was issued purportedly in pursuance of Government's letter, dated 24-11-1996. The appellant submitted the departmental appeal to all the three respondents on 13-2-1997 on which no decision was taken and the instant appeal was filed on 21-5-1997.

2. The appellant has contended that he was appointed on regular basis by the competent authority in the prescribed manner and he fulfilled the qualifications laid down for the post of Supervisor as he is a graduate with matriculation in first division whereas the qualifications prescribed for the post of CD Supervisor is matric with science. It is further contended that the order of termination was passed without assigning any reasons or providing an opportunity to be heard and there was no reason to terminate his services when his qualifications were found to be to order.

3. The appeal has been contested on the ground that the appointment of the appellant was made erratically against the post of a sanitary inspector, that no regard of the appointment of the appellant is available in the office of respondent No.2, that the appointment of the appellant was fictitious, that the impugned order was issued in compliance with Government instructions to denotify his illegal appointment, that the appointment was not made by the competent authority which is respondent No.3 whereas it was actually made by respondent No.2, that the appellant failed to appear for hearing before scrutiny committee on 1-3-1997 despite the notice issued on 20-2-1997 and therefore, the order of termination is legal. It is further contended that the termination of the services of the appellant was done also because he was appointed on temporary basis in contravention of the criteria on merit/vioaltion of policy and rules.

4. Arguments were heard and record perused. The learned counsel for the appellant brought out that out of 12 persons similarly appointed secure the stay order from the Hon'ble Lahore High Court and are still working as C. D. Supervisors. This positions was confirmed by the representative of the department. It has not been denied that the appellant fulfils the qualifications laid down for the post of C.D. Supervisor. It was also stated that the persons already working are drawing their salaries against the posts of Sanitary Inspectors. The written objections filed by the respondents suffered from contradictions inasmuch as on the one hand the impugned order is justified I on the ground that the appointment of the appellant was not in accordance with the transfer policy and he did not come up on merit and on the other, the letter of appointment itself has been described as bogus. This is a serious charge. Termination of services is a major penalty for which it was incumbent on the respondents to carry out a regular departmental enquiry against the appellant and other who were alleged to be involved in the issue of what has been described as a bogus letter of appointment. The impugned order purports to have been issued under directions of the Government to denotify illegal appointments. No directions can be issued to denotify the appointments in an illegal manner even if such appointments are alleged to have made in an illegal manner. It was indeed fair and just for the department to see that the same treatment is extended to the appellant as has been given to other even though they are continuing on the intervention of the Hon'ble Lahore High Court. It is further contended by the respondents that no record is available in the office of the Director. It is strange that in the absence of any record, the contentions such as the appointment letter being bogus and -the appellant being appointed in contravention of policy have been raised. In the absence of record, such contentions can only be A considered as presumptive. As to the point regarding the competency of respondent No.2 for making the appointment, it is sufficient to say that respondent No.3 by complying with the orders of appointment shall be presumed to have been played a passive role as to appointing authority if he is the appointing authority under the policy. Under the circumstances, the impugned order cannot legally be sustained. The department shall, however, be free to take appropriate action under the law and the rules to fix responsibility for the alleged illegalities.

5. In view of the foregoing, the appeal is allowed the impugned order, dated 27-1-1997 is set aside and the appellant is reinstated in service as C.D. Supervisor and the intervening period is treated as leave of the kind due. H.B.T./551-ST/P Appeal allowed.