MOHAMMAD AFZAL, MEMBER-I- Appellant challenges the orders dated 9.12.2004 vide which he was removed from service on the allegations that his, appointment as PTC teacher was bogus, he prepared bogus appointment orders dated 12.8.1993 under the signatures of Deputy District Education Officer and that the committed fraud with the department. Appellant filed departmental appeal dated 24.12.2004 and as the same was not decided within the statutory period, he has come up with present appeal in this Tribunal.
2. Appellant states in his appeal that he was appointed as PTC teacher through orders dated 12.8.1993 by the competent authority and that he was subsequently transferred to another school in 1997. it is also stated that the appellant kept working to the satisfaction of his superiors when he suddenly received intimation about disciplinary proceedings, it is also stated that his case was scrutinized by Army Survey Team and he was cleared by the Army.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued the case at length, it is contended that appointment of the appellant was genuine and that the appellant had been appointed in the Markaz on the recommendations of the Recruitment Committee, it is also argued that when the appellant had been cleared by the Army Survey Team, his case could not have been subjected to further scrutiny, it is further pointed out that disciplinary proceedings on the same allegations, i.e. Bogus appointment, were initiated against the appellant in 1998-1999 under Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules 1975, but the same were subsequently dropped and fresh proceedings could not have been held, once those proceedings had been dropped, it is next maintained that the notice served to the appellant for submission of reply at final stage did not give the appellant sufficient the as per law for submission of reply, but even then the appellant submitted reply in the, it is also pointed out that the audit of the accounts of the concerned office relating to appointments of PTC teachers for the period 1993, had been undertaken and the name of the appellant was not mentioned in the audit objections which related to such bogus appointments, it is next maintained that in some similar cases, appeal challenging the orders of termination of services had been accepted by the Tribunal, it is finally pointed out that under the principle of locus Poenitentiae, appellant could not be removed from service when he had rendered about 10-11 years service, without any complaint.
4. Appeal has been opposed by the respondents. It is stated that disciplinary proceedings were started against the appellant in 1998 when doubts were raised regarding appointment of the appellant and some other PTC teachers. The disciplinary proceedings remained frozen for some reasons but never dropped as claimed by the appellant, it is maintained that final proceedings were initiated under the Punjab Removal from service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and that the appellant had accepted the show cause notice in which he was given short period for submission of reply and he did submit reply and therefore, the appellant could not raise any such objection now. it is also maintained on behalf of the respondents that scrutiny of record was properly carried out and it was found that as per record i.e. Merit list and dispatch register, the appellant had never been appointed under the orders of competent authority and that he had himself managed the appointment orders in connivance with some dis-honest elements in the department, it is further maintained that when the appointment of the appellant was proved to be bogus and fictitious in the light of record and when inquiry was also conducted into the facts of the case, the appellant could not claim to continue with appointment in the light of principle of locus Poenitentiae, it is finally maintained that the countless similar cases of bogus appointments, this Tribunals had dismissed those appeals in which orders of termination of service (bogus appointments) were challenged.
5. I have considered contentions from both sides and also carefully gone through the relevant record including the merit list of Markaz Shah Saddar-ur-Din, the record of dispatch of appointment orders and such other relevant record. I repel the contention that disciplinary proceedings against the appellant got vitiated because of some technicalities. Appellant has not been able to prove from record that disciplinary proceedings initiated against him were dropped at any stage. I, therefore, find that law was correctly applied when the disciplinary proceedings were concluded against the appellant. Appellant himself accepted the show cause notice in which he was given only three days to submit reply and he submitted reply, in certain cases, this Tribunal may have accepted appeals keeping in view the individual facts, but I find that in large number of cases, appeals challenging the orders of termination of services on account of bogus appointments, were dismissed by the Tribunal. I have gone through the dispatch register containing record of dispatch of the appointment orders made in the year 1993. The orders of appointment of the appellant are shown to have been issued against No. 2031- 2032. As per record seen by me (which was also shown to the learned counsel for the appellant in the course of hearing of the case), against this No. The orders of the one Kaleem Ullah son of Mohammad Abdullah were issued for appointment as PTC teacher, it is quite evident, therefore, that the appellant committed fraud as he prepared appointment orders against the same number in his favour, whereas; those orders-Nos. Were in respect of another candidate selected on merits.
Similarly, the merit list of candidates in Markaz, Shah Saddar-ud-Din, was also examined in the course of hearing of the case. The name of the appellant did not figure in the merit list of selected candidates, the verification of appointment of the appellant on the basis of record showed that the appellant was not even posted in the school and he had not drawn any salary at the place of his first posting in 1993. When the appellant had not drawn any salary in 1993 even for a long the, therefore it is proved beyond any doubt that the appellant had prepared ante-dated bogus appointment orders and similarly managed to get his transfer to another school, in the verification of service record of the appellant dated 21.10.1998 by Deputy District Education Officer (M-EE) D.G.
Khan the finding is given as under: "The appointment orders of above named teacher (appellant) are bogus. According to the record of the undersigned, AEO Halqa Shah Saddar-ud- Din, he was posted by any orders and no salary was drawn in Primary School, Naseerwala (at his first place of posting shown in service book), in orders No. 2032/Admn, dated 12.8.1993. His orders No. 2032/Admn dated 12.8.1993 are, therefore, bogus." I also do not agree with learned counsel for the appellant that under the principle of locus Poenitentiae the appellant could not have been removed from service after period of 10 years. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in many judgments, particularly, in PLD 1992 SC 207, 2000 SCM R 907 and PLD 1998 SC (Pak.) 104, when the very orders are based on fraud and illegality, the concerned civil servant would not claim any rights to continue on the basis of such illegal orders:-
6. For the reasons given above, appeal is found without any substance and legal footing and the same is accordingly dismissed.