' Ch. MUHAMMAD SARWAR (MEMBER-I).---Briefly stated the facts leading to appeal are that the appellant was appointed as PTC Teacher on 21-4-1993 by the Deputy District Education Officer (M), Layyah. Proceedings under Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 were initiated against him on the ground that his appointment was made without merit and under political pressure. He was dismissed from service vide impugned order dated 27-12-1998 by the Deputy District Education Officer (M), Layyah on the grounds that his appointment is illegal and against the Government policy.
2. The Appellant preferred departmental appeal 'on 5-1-1999 alleging that his services have been terminated without issuing him show-cause notice. It was further mentioned in departmental appeal that the appellant possesses requisite qualifications, was appointed-by the Competent Authority and he served the department satisfactorily for 5 years. His departmental appeal was rejected on 24-2-1999 on the ground that alleged merit list produced by the Appellant along with the appeal is not genuine. Hence, this appeal.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant, District Attorney, and have perused the record and objections to the memorandum of appeal submitted by the Respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Appellant is F.A. PTC. He applied for the post of PTC in response to the advertisement published in the newspaper. The appellant was interviewed by the Tehsil Recruitment Committee and was placed at Sr. No.7 of the merits list and was appointed on merit. Learned Counsel for the appellant further argued that the appellant was dismissed from service without issuing show-cause notice and without conducting regular inquiry against him. Learned counsel for the Appellant further argued that the Appellant in the grounds of departmental appeal had also mentioned these facts but no regular inquiry was conducted before the dismissal of appeal.
5. The respondents in their objections to the memorandum of appeal have stated that the appellant was appointed without merit under political pressure. The merit list on which the appellant is at Sr. No.7 was prepared under political pressure. In fact the Appellant stands at Sr.
No.32 of the merit list and only candidates from Sr. Nos.1 to 14 were appointed.
6. The perusal of the appointment order dated 21-4-1993 reveals that the Appellant was appointed on the approval of the Tehsil Recruitment Committee. The appellant stands at Sr. No.7 of the merit list (photocopy of the merit list was placed with the appeal). It is 'written in the impugned order dated 27-12-1998 that the appellant was given show-cause notice and personal hearing but no proof of issuance of show-cause notice has been given by the respondents. The appellant in the departmental appeal has mentioned that he was not given any show-cause notice before passing the dismissal order but in the appellate order it has not been denied.
7. The Respondents in the objections to the memorandum of appeal have stated that merit list produced by the appellant was prepared under political pressure and is not va1d while in the merit list prepared on the direction of the High Court, the Appellant stands at Sr. No.32 of the merit list.
Photocopy of the merit list has been placed with the objections to the memorandum of appeal. At Sr. No.32, of the merit list is Muhammad Jamil son of Allah Diwaya, resident of Kot Sultan. It is typed list. The name of the appellant has been added with pen at Sr. No.31-A. This entry has not been authenticated by the Members of the Recruitment Committee. As such no reliance on this merit list can be placed.
8. It was held in 1993 SCM R 603 that for resolving controversial questions of fact, proper course would be to hold a full-fledged inquiry where evidence has to be recorded and opportunity of cross-examination has to be given, otherwise findings recorded would be based more on conjectures than on evidence. The services of the appellant were terminated without conducting regular inquiry and without affording him the opportunity to produce his defence.
9. According to the Government of the Punjab, Services, General Administration and Information Department's Notification No. SOR (S&GAD)-15-1-71, dated 5-3-1974, the Authority Competent to award punishment is District Education Officer. This fact has been conceded by the District Attorney. The impugned order dated 27-12-1998 was passed by the Deputy District Education Officer (M), Layyah who was not competent to pass the said orders. The impugned order is thus nullity in the eyes of law and cannot be sustained.
10. In the light of above discussion, the appeal is accepted, impugned orders dated 27-12-1998 and 24-2-1999 are set aside. The Appellant is reinstated in service. Intervening period shall be treated as leave of the kind due. There will be no order as to the costs.