' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.---Syeda Shaheen Bukhari petitioner, Senior Mistress University Public School, University of Peshawar has brought the present writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, assailing the office order, dated 2-7-2002 whereby in pursuance of the decision of the Syndicate taken in its meeting held on 30-5-2002, the pay of the petitioner was reduced to the initial stage of BPS 18 under the provisions of section 6(b)
(i) of the University of Peshawar (Employees Efficiency and Discipline) Statutes 1977, with effect from 30-5-2002.
2. The facts which we have been able to gather from the record of the case are that the petitioner initially appointed as a teacher in the year 1986 University Public School, Peshawar, was served with show-cause notice on 7-9-1998 on the allegations that she was author/co-author of the news item appeared in daily "The News", dated 31-5-1998. This show-cause notice was issued on the report of the Principal of the School. Simultaneously she was transferred to Islamia Collegiate School, Peshawar vide order, dated 7-9-1998. She submitted reply to the show-cause notice on 11-9-1998.
The reply having been found unsatisfactory, an Enquiry Committee was constituted to probe into the allegations. The petitioner put up the legal objection to the appointment of the Committee and challenged its jurisdiction and requested for its reconstitution by the Syndicate vide letter, dated 7- 5-1999 and 25-5-1999. The petitioner also requested for personal hearing before the Vice- Chancellor on 4-9-1999 but her request remained unresponded. Subsequently the petitioner was afforded personal hearing vide letter, dated 2-10-1999. The grievance of the petitioner is that she had no hand in the affair and the matter was finally settled and considered closed by the Authorities but it was re-opened and culminated in the passing of the impugned order.
3. In the comments submitted on behalf of respondents, it was maintained that the Enquiry Committee was constituted by the Authorized Officer/Vice-Chancellor, in accordance with the provisions of Statute of the University, and the objections raised by the petitioner with regard to its constitution had no factual or legal force. It was also reiterated that the petitioner duly participated in the enquiry proceedings, she was afforded the opportunity to appear before the Enquiry Committee and defend herself, but she intentionally did not appear before the Committee and that the reply of the petitioner having been found unsatisfactory, she was rightly proceeded against and dealt with in accordance with law.
4. We have heard at length Mr. Muhammad Jamil Khan, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Aziz Akhtar Chaughti Advocate for respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended with force that the impugned order is illegal, uncalled for, unwarranted by law, without lawful authority, tainted with mala fide and in continuation of victimization process. The learned counsel maintained that the petitioner has been made victim of excesses due to the activities of her husband Mian Asghar Shah, Senior Master, University Public School, Peshawar, who remained critic of the affairs of the University Public School, the authority and appointment of the Principal, University Public School, Peshawar. He raised his voice against the affairs and management of the School, insufficiency of funds, incompetency and incapability of the Principal, University Public School, and Peshawar. Additionally, he urged that enquiry was conducted in utter violation of Efficiency and Discipline Statutes/Rules and the petitioner was afforded no opportunity to appear and defend her case or produce her evidence in defence or even to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. The learned counsel complained that no witness was examined by the Committee in her presence or she was confronted with the documents. So much so the news item of 31-5-1998 attributed to the petitioner and published in daily `The News' was never produced before the Committee or placed on record or exhibited or confronted. He added that the star witness Malik Naz, Principal University Public School was not examined in presence of the petitioner's prejudiced has been caused to her. Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel asserted that the matter was once settled down, when the petitioner was afforded personal hearing and she tendered regrets upon the deliberation of Ex- Vice Chancellor. Qasim Jan, in order to settle the issue amicably and finally putting an end to it.
6. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and maintained that a proper enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and having been found guilty she was dealt with in accordance with law and that no case for interference in Constitutional jurisdiction has been made out.
7. A perusal of the record would indicate that the petitioner is accused of having authored/co- authored an item/news published in the Press on 30-5-1998 in order to impair the image and reputation of the institution. The allegation has been totally denied. There is absolutely nothing on the file to prove that the petitioner had a hand in the affairs and she was author/co-author of the article/news in question. In the absence of such evidence, the respondents had no legal justification to proceed against the petitioner and pass the impugned order against her. It is not denied that a direct nexus between the author and its publication has to be established by the prosecution by independent evidence in order to succeed in a case of this nature. There must be evidence to show that the publication was made by the accused. The prosecution must affirmatively prove that the accused published the article/news complained of it is not denied that no action can be initiated against an employee on the basis of press reports. The press reports without formal proof ate not admissible in evidence and as such no reliance can be placed on the same. In the present case, we find that the petitioner has been made victim of excesses on account of the activities of her husband Mian Asghar Shah, Senior Teacher who remained vocal about the affairs of University Public School and its mismanagement and expressed his concerned about its affairs. Mian Asghar Shah was also subjected to face enquiry and subsequently retired from service. This fact alone is sufficient to exhibit mala fides on the part of the University Authorities. It may be mentioned here with advantage that enquiry was lingering on since 1997 and it was delayed unnecessarily without any legal justification. The submission of the learned counsel for respondents that enquiry has been delayed due to the conduct of the petitioner carries no weight. We find ourselves in agreement with learned counsel for the petitioner that enquiry has been conducted in utter disregard to the mandatory provisions of the University of Peshawar Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Statutes 1977, which reads as under:-- "Procedure to be observed by the Inquiry Committee.
(15) Where an Inquiry Officer or Inquiry Committee is appointed, the authorized officer shall:
(a) Frame a charge and communicate it to the accused together with statement of the allegations explaining the charge and any other relevant circumstances which are proposed to be taken into consideration.
(b) Require the accused within a reasonable time, which shall not be less than seven days or more than fourteen from the day the charge has been communicated to him, to put in a written defence, and to state at the same time whether the desires to be heard in person.
(16) The Inquiry Officer or the Committee, as the case may be, shall enquire into the charge and may examine such oral or documentary evidence in support of the charge or in defence of the accused as may be considered necessary and the accused shall b e entitled to cross-examine witnesses against him.
(17) The Inquiry Officer or the Committee, as the case may be, shall hear the case from day to day and no adjournment shall be given except for reasons to be recorded in writing. However, every adjournment, with reasons therefore, shall be reported forthwith to the authorized officer. Ordinarily no adjournment shall be for more than a week.
(18) Where the Inquiry Officer or the Committee, as the case may be, is satisfied that the accused is hampering, or attempting to hamper, the progress of the enquiry, he or it shall administer a warning, and if thereafter he is satisfied that the accused is acting in disregard of the warning he or it shall record a finding to that effect and proceed to complete the enquiry in such manner as he or it thinks best suited to do substantial justice.
(19) The Inquiry Officer or the Committee, as the case may be shall within ten days of the conclusion of the proceedings or such longer period as may be allowed by the authorized officer, submit his or in finding and the ground thereof to the authorized officer."
8. We also feel that the matter having been settled down by the then Vice-Chancellor of the University, should have been buried once for all and should not have been allowed to raise its head.
The re-opening of the matter without any justifiable reason speaks of the mala fides and ill-will of the administration. The petitioner having been initially appointed as a teacher in the year, 1986 has more than eighteen years of service to her credit. She has a long experience of teaching and held her service spotless and unblemished. She has been proceeded against and dealt with in a mechanical manner in total disregard to the provisions of University of Peshawar (Employees Efficiency and Discipline) Statutes, 1977.
9. Pursuant to the above reasons, we accept the writ petition and declare the impugned order, dated 2-7-2002 whereby the petitioner was downgraded to BPS 18 in its initial stage with effect from 31-5-2002, as without lawful authority and of no legal effect and strike down the same with an order of restoration of original seniority, position and pay scale of service with all back-benefits.
There shall be no order as to costs.