' Mr. JUSTICE (RETD.) RIAZ KAYANI (CHAIRMAN).--- Mst. Farah Deeba, former Headmistress, Workers Welfare School, Sahuki Malian, District Sheikhupura has come in appeal assailing the order dated 27-3-2003 passed by Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Labour and Human Resource Department/Chairman Punjab Workers Welfare Board, Lahore whereby representation of the appellant was dismissed and the order passed by the authority dated 15-6-2002 imposing major penalty of removal from service and recovery of Rs.14,013/-and Rs.5,097 was maintained.
2. Facts of the case succinctly described in the memorandum of appeal are that the appellant was appointed as Teacher in Social Security School, Shandara in the year 1989. In December, 1998, appellant was appointed as Principal and posted at Social Security School, Sahuki Malian, District Sheikhupura. Junior Clerk by the name of Abdul Khaliq Shahid was painted as villain by the appellant and alleging acts of misfeasance against him, it was stated that he was placed under suspension after which he took the complete record of the school including vouchers, registers and papers pertaining to accounts and stores with the result that the appellant was constrained to file a complaint against the said Clerk to the Secretary Board. Appellant appended an order, dated 27- 5-2000 purportedly issued by the Chairman, Provincial Board of Management, Workers Children Education Cell/Secretary Labour and Manpower Department, wherein at serial No.18, appellant was shown to have been granted selection grade in BS-17 with effect from 12-9-1984. It was stated that on 7-9-2000, to the shock of the appellant, she was told that orders granting selection grade to her were fake. On the complaint of the appellant, an F.I.R. Was registered against Abdul Khaliq Shahid, Clerk under section 409 P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No.779 of 2000 with Police Station, Saddar Sheikhupura. In the meanwhile, appellant was also placed under suspension vide order dated 22-11-2000 and on 5-12-2000, the authority directed departmental proceedings against the appellant under the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1999 along with Abdul Khaliq Shahid, Junior Clerk and Mr. Shaukat Pervaiz Shaukat, Deputy Director (Planning), Labour and Manpower Department was appointed as Inquiry Officer. It was realized by the authority that the proper rules under which the proceedings should be initiated were not the E&D Rules of 1999, but Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 as it had come in field on 18-9-2000, therefore, order dated 5-12-2000 was modified and proceedings instead were initiated under Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 by appointment of Mr. Riaz Ahmad Chaudhry, Deputy Director, Inspectorate of Mines, Punjab, Lahore as Inquiry Officer. A charge-sheet containing the following allegations was served upon the appellant:-- "That while posted as Headmistress, Workers Welfare School, Sahuki Malian, you have misused your official position and committed the following misconduct:--
(1) Tampered with official record using fake order and drew the amount of Rs.84,367 from the Bank unauthorizedly. (Letter No.WW-Edu (552)97/V01-H1/1678 dated 27-5-2000.
(2) Amount of Rs.14013 of M/s. Feroze Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. Having beep drawn from Bank through Cash and not paid to firm.
(3) Misappropriation of a huge amount of approximately Rs.6,28,556 by you in connivance with Mr. Abdul Khaliq Shahid, Junior Clerk (under suspension)."
' Appellant denied the charges stating that she was due for grant of selection grade and there was no reason why she should have faked order dated 27-5-2000. She stated that she deposited the amount accrued to her by virtue of the grant of selection grade the moment she came to know that it was not actually due to her. As regards second charge, she denied to have withdrawn it from the bank. Similarly the third charge was also denied to have been committed by her in any manner. The Inquiry Officer after extending full opportunity to the appellant to participate in the inquiry, submitted his report dated 11-9-2001 with the following recommendations:-- "I propose to impose the minor penalty of stoppage of five increments on Mrs. Farah Deeba former Headmistress, WWS, Sahuki Malian (Accused No.1) on account of offering bribe to Sh. Saeed-ur- Rehman for financial gains and withdrawing arrears without approval of pay fixation. She may not be posted independently during the penalty period.
' Since Mr. Abdul Khaliq Shahid, former Junior Clerk WWS Sahuki Malian (Accused No.2) is a complete instrument in this case in between Mrs. Farah Deeba and Sh. Saeed-ur-Rehman in finalizing the deal, he is equally responsible and has to face the music alike. I also recommend to impose minor penalty of stoppage of five increments on him.
' I also suggest disciplinary action against Sh. Saeed-ur-Rehman,former Assistant Director (A&A) for trapping and blackmailing Mrs. Farah Deeba (Accused No.1) by arranging the issuance of fake order dated 27-5-2000 wherein selection grade was shown as granted to her."
' The authority after examining the inquiry report found that the Inquiry Officer failed to probe into charges Nos.2 and 3 by recording any evidence, as such the case was remitted to him with the direction to reexamine charges Nos.2 and 3 by taking into consideration the evidence available.
The Inquiry Officer thereafter submitted another report on 20-10-2001 after examining as many as five witnesses who were allowed full chance to be cross-examined by the appellant. Check register, dead stock register, library books register, uniform/stationery stock registers and letter regarding financial, training and complaints against Mr. Abdul Khalid Shahid was also taken into consideration by visiting the Workers Welfare School for Boys, Sahuki Malian, where the appellant served as Principal and he found that a letter dated 24-5-2001 of the National Bank of Pakistan, Shandara Branch, presented by Sh. Saeed-ur-Rehman, Headmaster, the name of Feroze Sons, (Pvt.) Ltd. Had been scratched, subsequently to add the name of another firm against Cheque No.463546, dated 30-6-1999 amounting to Rs.9080. At another place, 'Books for Lib' was written by scratching the name of Feroze Sons against Cheque No.463561 dated 30-6-1999 amounting to Rs.4932. The library register was also checked along with the statement of Malik Muhammad Akhtar, Librarian, and no relevant entry to certify that the books purchased were found in the register. The Inquiry Officer concluded that amount of Rs.14012 drawn from Bank for payment to M/s. Feroze Sons had gone to the personal account No.5254-4 of Mrs. Farah Deeba (appellant) and she never made payment to M/s. Feroze Sons, charge No.2 therefore stood proved. It was also observed by the Inquiry Officer that Mr. Saeed-ur-Rehman, Headmaster did not produce these documents during the first inquiry. As for charge No.3, the Inquiry Officer on a visit to the school, examined the dead stock register and uniform/stationery registers which were not earlier produced before him, and it was found that almost 95% entries were missing in the stock registers which created doubts about the transparent maintenance of accounts. After close scrutiny of a number of registers, and ledger books, it was found that a definite amount of Rs.10194 stood embezzled by the appellant along with her Junior Clerk. Therefore charge No.3 also stood proved, and the following recommendations were made in the subsequent inquiry report.
"As charges Nos.1 and 2 stand totally proved and charge No.3 stand partially proved against them, the undersigned recommends the imposition of major penalty of removal from service as prescribed in rule 4(b)(iv) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1999 upon both the accused Mrs. Farah Deeba, former Headmistress and Mr. Abdul Khaliq Shahid, former Junior Clerk, Workers Welfare School (Boys) Sahuki Malian besides recoveries of Rs.14012 in respect of allegation No.2 and Rs.10194 in respect of allegation No.3 may be effected."
' The authority after extending hearing to the appellant, passed order which has now been impugned.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the order on a number of grounds, first being the violation of Article 13 of Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 in that rule of double jeopardy was put to four winds by vexing the appellant thrice in the inquiry proceedings and that the earlier action which commenced under the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1999 could not be subsequently converted to the proceedings under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. Thirdly it was contended that the authority could order a de novo inquiry within 14 days to be counted from the time when the earlier inquiry report was submitted to him, but in the present case, admittedly a month had passed, therefore, the last inquiry was tainted with illegality. Finally, it was submitted that the appellant was made a scapegoat for the wrongs of others, and the whole action was based on mala fides. Conversely, learned District Attorney stoutly refuted the arguments of the counsel for the appellant and with the assistance of the departmental representative present with file, supported the impugned orders.
4. We have heard the respective counsel at length and perused the record.
5. The arguments of the counsel for the appellant have not at all impressed us. Before coming to the legal objections, we would like to discuss the case on merits. Abdul Khaliq Shahid, Junior Clerk, Workers Welfare School Sahuki Malian, District Sheikhupura was placed under suspension by the Department on 24-8-2000. It is stated that he disappeared from the school along with official record, the complaint having been made specifically by the appellant to the authorities. The appellant further was a complainant in the F.I.R. Bearing No.779 registered with Police Station, Sadar Sheikhupura dated 27-11-2000 under section 409 P.P.C. Against Abdul Khaliq Shahid, Junior Clerk, Letter bearing No.7493/E-1 dated 3-3-2001 from the Superintendent of Police, Sheikhupura to the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura revealed that during the course of investigation, the said case, was proved to be false and cancellation report was submitted on 20-12-2000. We have also gone through the Police Zimini wherein it is stated by the Investigating Officer Nazir Ahmad, A.S.-I. That a written application was received by the complainant that record of the school was recovered from the Almirah and has been handed over to Ghazala Bashir, Senior Teacher. The said Senior Teacher also addressed the S.H.O. Police Station, Sadar Sheikhupura that she has assumed custody of the said record. The Investigating Officer ended the Zimini with the remarks that the complainant (appellant) herself admitted that the record was present in the premises of the school, therefore the case against Abdul Khaliq Shahid was not based on truth and accordingly cancellation report dated 20-11-2000 was prepared. If Abdul Khaliq Shahid, Junior Clerk disappeared on 24-8-2000 along with the record when he was placed under suspension and the F.I.R. Was recorded on 27-11- 2000, how could the school record, stated to have been taken away by the Junior Clerk, re-appear in the almirahs of the school. Secondly, why should a Junior Clerk commit a forgery whose whole beneficiary was the appellant without her knowledge, as claimed by the appellant. When we grilled the appellant, who volunteered to address the Tribunal after her counsel had finished the arguments, to our query, she stated that the Junior Clerk committed the forgery to plant a case of misconduct against her. When we asked her further as to what rancour could the Junior Clerk have against the Principal, no satisfactory answer was given to us. Mrs. Surraya Anees, Director Education after a probe submitted a report that the first sheet containing serial Nos.1 to 19 of the order dated 27-5-2000 granting selection grades to various teachers was replaced wherein at serial No.18, the actual grantee Mrs. Aasia Shaheen of Rawalpindi was replaced with the name of the appellant and in this manner, the record was tampered using the fake orders to draw the amount of Rs.84000 from the bank. We are convinced that the appellant herself was the master mind of the forgery and the ugly manner in which the manipulation was carried has pained us that a Teacher working as Principal would stoop so down to get benefit which was to be given to her in any case in due course of time. A teacher is considered to be embodiment of virtues collected together not only to mould the young students but to shape their future life as role models for their contemporaries. We are of the firm belief that a Principal who for little gains, can cross all limits to attain it in a total grotesque manner, does not at all deserve to stay at such a high pedestal.
6. The proceedings were launched on 5-12-2000 when the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 had already taken the field, therefore abrogation of all the proceedings under the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1999 was a correct step and initiation of proceedings under the prevalent law rectified the wrong done. Argument of the learned counsel is repelled.
7. In the preceding paragraph, we have observed that the inquiry report dated 11-9-2001 was not accepted by the authority as charges Nos.2 and 3 were not adequately dissected, therefore the case was remitted for recording more evidence available, and the subsequent inquiry report dated 20-10-2001 would prove to the hilt that earlier the Headmaster has shied from producing the complete record, probably to help out the appellant, but when cornered, he came with the record which proved the charges Nos.2 and 3. In other words, full justice was done to both the prosecution and the defence, and we do not find anything wrong in the procedure adopted.
8. The much trumpeted argument that Article 13 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was voilated or the rule of double jeopardy was put to smithereens is an argument totally devoid of merit. The rule has its origin in the Roman law maxim actro-fois acquit, actro-fois convict, is only applicable where a competent Court of law either acquits or convicts the accused, thereafter the accused cannot be tried for the same offence. Maxim has no application to the number of inquiries as no order of competent authority has yet taken the field. This rule is so well- known that it requires no more dilation.
9. The 14 days time limit provided to the authority is for a de novo inquiry which he has to order by giving reasons if he finds that the inquiry proceedings have not been conducted in accordance with the facts and merits of the case which have been ignored. In the instant appeal, vide order dated 11-10-2001, the authority observed that the inquiry report was examined and found that allegations Nos.2 and 3 have not been fully examined/investigated, therefore he directed the Inquiry Officer to further investigate to two allegations within seven days positively. The order of the authority was not for holding a de novo inquiry, but for examining evidence which it ignored or was not produced only with respect to allegations Nos.2 and 3. Charge No.1, which was the main charge, had already been proved. The rule enunciated in the proviso of section 8 of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, therefore, is not attracted, as observed, it relates to de novo inquiry.
10. Charge No.1 according to the report of the Inquiry Officer dated 20-11-2001, reproduced in the preceding paragraph of this judgment stood fully proved and the recommndation was for imposition of major penalty.
11. No other point having been pleaded, we are not persuaded to intercede on behalf of the appellant as her appeal is devoid of merit. Resultantly, the same is dismissed without any order as to costs.