' JAVED IQBAL, J.---These petitions for leave to appeal are directed against the judgment dated 29- 11-2000 passed by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby the appeals preferred on behalf of petitioners have been rejected and joint order dated 5-2-1999 whereby they were removed from service has been kept intact. We intend to dispose of the above captioned petitions by this order as similar questions of law and facts are involved.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners were recruited as Class-IV employee in BPS-1 by means of appointment letter dated 29-6-1995 issued by the Deputy District Education Officer (EE-W) Vehari. The petitioners were performing their duties to the satisfaction of their superiors when on 25-8-1998 a show-cause notice was issued by the authorized officer under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 that as to why their services should not be terminated as their appointments were not in accordance with law and on merits. It was also decided by the authorized officer to dispense with the inquiry. After affording personal opportunity of hearing to the petitioners the District Education Officer (W)EE Vehari removed the petitioners from service by means of order dated 25-2-1999 having found them guilty of misconduct. After exhausting departmental remedies the petitioners approached learned Punjab Service Tribunal by filing appeals which were dismissed, hence these petitions.
3. Messrs Muhammad Ramzan Ch., Ch. Muhammad Hussain Naqshbandi, Tariq Zulfiqar Ahmadd Chaudhrry and Ch. Muhammad Yaqub Sindhu, learned Advocate Supreme Courts appeared on behalf of petitioners and contended straneously that the mandatory formalities as envisaged in the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 were never adhered to which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. It is next contended that the petitioners were appointed as Class-IV employees after completion of all the necessary formalities and at the- recommendations of the District Recruitment Committee by the Deputy District Education Officer who was competent to make such appointments. It is also contended that the petitioners cannot be blamed for subsequent change in the constitution of District Recruitment Committee being least concerned and little fry in the organization. It is also appointed out that the 'appointments were made on the recommendations of the DistriGt Recruitment Committee which was inexistence at the time when recommendations were made and such as such no illegality whatsoever has been committed. It is urged with vehemence that major penalty of removal from service could not have been imposed without having a thorough inquiry regarding the existence and subsequent change if any in the District Recruitment Committee and the impugned judgment has been - passed on conjectural presumptions without having taken into consideration the relevant record and the merit list prepared by the District Recruitment Committee on the basis whereof the appointments of the petitioners were made. It is also contended that the petitioners cannot be held guilty for misconduct as they had performed their duties to the entire satisfaction of their superiors and they were never found inefficient or corrupt.
4. Miss Salina Malik, learned Assistant Advocate-General Punjab appeared on behalf of the Director of Education and straneously controverted the view-point as canvassed at the bar by the learned Advocate Supreme Courts on behalf of petitioners with the submission that appointments of the petitioners were ab initio void as they were never appointed at the recommendation of properly constituted Recruitment Committee. It is also contended that the petitioners do not fulfill the requisite criteria and qualification for such appointment.
5. We have carefully examined the respective contentions as agitated on behalf of the parties in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. It is an admitted feature of the case that the petitioners were appointed by the Deputy Director Education Officer (EE-W) by means of order dated 29-6-1995 at the recommendations of the then District Recruitment Committee. It is quite amazing that after A expiry of three long years it came to the notice of respondents that the appointments were not made by the Competent Authority. The learned Assistant Advocate- General could produce nothing showing that at the relevant time the Deputy District Education Officer was not Appointing Authority or appointments of Class-IV employees could not be made by her. It is too late in the day to raise such unfounded objections. The appointment letter dated 29-6- 1995 is indicative of the fact that appointments were made by the Deputy District Education Officer, Tehsil Burewala with the conditions that the services of petitioners will be governed by the relevant rule such as Efficiency and Discipline Rules and other rules framed by the Government regarding retirement, leave, travelling, medical and pay etc. It transpires from scrutiny of record that the petitioners were removed from service in a mechanical manner without diligent application of mind and scrutiny of the relevant record. The main accusation as mentioned in the show-cause notices is that either the petitioners were uneducated, over age or their names were not appearing in the merit list. No inquiry worth the name was conducted to see as to whether charges levelled in the show-cause notice are in accordance with record or otherwise. It is not known which of the merits list was considered by the authorized officer inferring that the names of the petitioners were not included in the merit list. It is worth-mentioning that initially it was not the case of respondents that the names of the petitiones were not included in the merit list but on the contrary their grievance was that the appointments were made by District Recruitment Committee which was not properly constituted. There is no denying the fact that the petitioners cannot be penalized for the reasons that the committee was not properly constituted because constitution of the committee squarely falls with the jurisdictional domain of the Education Department and the petitioners cannot be held responsible for its proper or improper constitution. It does not appeal to logic and reason that Class-IV employees should be aware regarding the procedure and competency of the authority relating to their appointments. It is worth-mentioning that the recruitment policy was reviewed by means of letter No,SOR-III-2-1/94, dated 8-9-1995, as mentioned whereof has been made time and again by the learned Assistant Advocate-General ignoring the fact that the appointments of the petitioners were made by the District Recruitment Committee which' was functional at that time i,e, 29-6-1995 and, therefore, subsequently if the committee was reconstituted after 8-9-1995 it would have , no bearing on the appointments of the petitioners who were admittedly appointed on 29-6-1995 on the recommendations of a validly ,constituted District Recruitment Committee. The learned Assistant Advocate-General when inquired about the criteria and requisite qualification qua the appointment of Class-IV employees, no definite reply could be given. It, however, transpired from Letter No, 277CHB dated 2-3-1997 issued by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Multan that no criteria whatsoever was fixed for selection of the post Class-IV servants. The appointment letter is also silent regarding the requisite criteria or qualification but makes it abundant clear that the appointments were made as a result of approval by the District Recruitment Committee. In all the above mentioned petitions the allegations are that the appointments were made in violation of the prescribed procedure as the names of the petitioners were not recommended by the District Recruitment Committee which cannot be proved by producing any worthy of credence documentary or oral evidence.
6. As mentioned hereinabove it was not the case of respondents that the appointments were not made at the recommendations of the District Recruitment Committee but their grievance was that recommendation was made by a committee which was not properly constituted. Be as it may the petitioners were removed from service in a haphazard manner and in violation of the prescribed procedure as enumerated in the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 without affording them proper opportunity of hearing and without holding enquiry which was quite inevitable to determine as to whether recommendations for the appointments of petitioners were made by the District Recruitment Committee or otherwise?
7. In sequel to the above mentioned discussion we are inclined to grant leave by converting these petitions into appeals which are accepted and the judgment impugned is set aside. The appellants shall be reinstated in service from the date of their removal from service. We are, however, not inclined to grant back-benefits. The appeals are accepted in above terms.