' Ghulam Hussain, former PTC teacher, Govt. High School, Chung, Lahore City has come in appeal bringing in challenge order dated 19-6-2004 passed by the District Education Officer (M.E.E.) Lahore whereby the appeal of the appellant was dismissed and the order of the authority dated 12-4-2001 removing the appellant from service while proceedings against him under the provisions of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000, was maintained.
2. Appellant was appointed as PTC teacher vide Order No.965/E-I dated 16-5-1993 against an existing vacancy of PTC teacher in Govt. Primary School, Khawaja Abad, Lahore City with the directions contained in appointment letter that he will join service after summer vacation 1993. On 28-10-1993, the District Education Officer (M.E.E.) Lahore City issued an order to the effect that in supersession of the earlier dated 16-5-1993 issued by Deputy District Education Officer (M.E.E.)
Lahore City, appellant was adjusted as PTC teacher at Govt. High School, Shahpur Kanjrah Lahore vice Mr. Akbar Ali, PTC promoted, with the same terms and conditions as were laid down in his original appointment orders. On 3-1-2004 appellant was served with the charge-sheet containing the allegation that he obtained bogus adjustment vide Letter No.596/E-II dated 28-10-1993 purportedly to have been issued by District Education Officer (M.E.E.) Lahore City through which he was employed. Appellant denied the allegation and stated that the charge was vague and non- specific, therefore, appropriate reply cannot be submitted. Appellant further stated that if the entry of the adjustment order is not contained in the dispatch register the probable reason could be that Zia Shah, clerk had a separate register whereas the District Education Officer, Muhammad Yaqoob Randhawa, maintained his own register, in which he entered the entries of various letters issued and it would be appropriate if the register maintained by the District Education Officer is scrutinized which definitely would contain the number of the adjustment order. Lastly he pleaded that if there was any mistake in the adjustment order he could not be squarely blamed for the same as the responsibility also fell upon the shoulders of those who issued it. A regular inquiry in which the appellant fully participated was held on 5-3-2004 by Senior Headmaster, Govt. High School, Mohlanwal. Lahore. The Inquiry Officer examined Khalid Malik, Assistant Education Officer. The witness produced the certified copy of the relevant leaves of the register and gave a statement according to which Order bearing No.596/E-I dated 28-10-1993 related to the adjustment of Abdul Waheed, SV teacher and not the adjustment of the appellant as claimed by him. Second written statement was obtained from the appellant on 9-2-2004 in which he pleaded for being allowed an opportunity to lead defence which was granted. It was stated by the appellant that his adjustment letter was handed over to him by Nighat Parveen teacher who worked in Govt. Girls High School, Chung. He appeared after the summer vacation of the year 1993 before Mirza Muhammad Shafi, District Education Officer who directed him to contact Zia Shah, clerk who would give him the orders. Consequently, he went to Zia Shah, clerk and was given adjustment Letter bearing No. 496 dated 28-10-1993 which he took to the Government High School, Shahpur Kanjrah and later on in the year 1999 the orders were verified to be correct and he was given selection grade in BS-9.
Appellant also mentioned in cross-examination that Nighat Parveen, teacher was a friend of his mother and she took Rs.10,000 as bribe but he does not know whether the amount was utilized by her or given to anyone else but he admitted that he paid no money to Zia Shah, clerk. Mr. Zia Shah, clerk in the office of Deputy District Education Officer (M.E.E.) Lahore City was also examined and he made a statement that appellant was appointed as PTC teacher on 16-5-1993 which entry was made in the register and the appellant was not given any order 'Dasti'. He was prepared to swear that he did not issue any adjustment orders to the appellant because he was working in the office of Deputy District Education Officer whereas appellant stated that he received the adjustment orders from the office of District Education Officer Lahore City and the contradictory aspects were asked by the witness from the appellant to explain to which he replied that his appointment order dated 16-5-1993 was received from Zia Shah, clerk whereas the adjustment orders dated 28-10- 1993 were given to him by Nighat Parveen teacher. The Inquiry Officer after weighing the evidence which he gleaned out from the statements of Mr. Khalid Malik, Assistant Education Officer and Zia Shah, clerk reached the conclusion that Ghulam Hussain son of Ghulam Rasool, teacher, Government High School, Chung, the present appellant secured a bogus adjustment Order bearing No.496/E-I dated 28-10-1993 through which he secured his services in a fraudulent and bogus manner for the reason that the adjustment letter produced by him had no entry in any register. It was recommended that the appellant should be removed from service w.e.f. 3-11-1993 the day he joined the post on the basis of the adjustment letter. Deputy District Education Officer (M.E.E.)
Lahore City, the authority of the appellant, vide order dated 12-4-2004, after hearing the appellant removed him from service. His appeal to the District Education Officer also did not meet with any success and accordingly was rejected vide a detailed order, after providing hearing to the appellant.
3. I have heard the arguments of the respective counsel and perused the record.
4. Appellant was appointed on 16-5-1993 vide Order No. 965/E-I but he did not join the duty within the limited period and after the lapse of five months and 12 days he produced fake adjustment Order No.436/E-II dated 28-10-1993 purportedly issued by District Education Officer (M.E.E.) Lahore City. It has been proved through the open and transparent inquiry that neither was District Education Officer (M.E.E.) Lahore city competent to issue any adjustment orders, delivered such orders to the appellant, which was only within the competence of Deputy District Education Officer (M.E.E.) Lahore City and secondly there was no entry of the adjustment order dated 28-10-1993 in any register whatsoever. The entry on 28-10-1993 of Order bearing No.496/E-II pertain to adjustment of Abdul Waheed, SV teacher. Appellant further has admitted in his statement record by the Inquiry Officer that he gave Rs.10,000 to Nighat Parveen, teacher. Bribe giver is as much liable as bribe taker. This revelation made by the appellant makes it abundantly clear that by giving bribe he secured an adjustment order which was bogus in its entirety. Appellant could have examined the District Education Officer (M.E.E.) Lahore city in defence if he had any reservations that the adjustment order was issued by him. The prosecution was under no obligation to have examined the said officer after the Assistant Education Officer, Mr. Khalid by name produced the record which did not contain the entry of the adjustment letter in favour of the appellant.
5. There is no merit in the appeal as the appointment secured by the appellant was through bogus means, therefore, mere length of time for which he taught in the school would not equip him with an argument that harsh action of removal from service after teaching for 10/11 long years muffled the fraud committed earlier. It has been held by the superior Courts that fraud vitiates the most seldom proceedings and the passage of time does not erase it. The appeal being without merit is accordingly dismissed.