' MUHAMMAD AFZAL (MEMBE-I)---Appeal is directed against the orders dated 15-1-2005 vide which the appellant was removed from service under Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1999, on the following charges:--
(1) Single appointment orders.
(2) Bogus appointment.
(3) Misconduct.
' He filed departmental appeal, but the same was rejected through final/impugned orders dated 17-3-2005 hence present -appeal in this Tribunal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued the case at length stating that the appointment of the appellant as PTC teacher had taken place through orders dated 29-4-1993 on the recommendations of District Selection Committee in Lahore City. There had been no complaint against the appellant and that the appellant had been receiving pay as PTC teacher regularly.
However, a charge-sheet dated 14-7-2001 was received containing allegations of bogus appointment and misconduct etc. And the appellant submitted his reply to the Charge-sheet, denying the allegations of bogus appointment. It is further stated that an inquiry committee was constituted who declared the appointment of the appellant as genuine and that similarly the appointment of the appellant was verified to be genuine by the appointing authority/the then Deputy District Education Officer. It is next maintained that Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1999 had lost their efficacy on the introduction of Punjab Removal From Service (Special Powers)
Ordinance, 2000 and, therefore, proceedings initiated and concluded under these rules stood vitiated. It is also contended that the appellant was properly qualified to hold the job and that the dispatch No, of the appointment orders of the appellant as PTC teacher which was being considered doubtful, was correct, but some persons with bad intentions had removed the relevant pages from the dispatch register in order to show the appointment of some one else against the same number for which the appellant could not be held responsible. It is finally maintained that under the principle of locus poenitentiae also, the appellant could not be removed from service, after more than 10 years.
3. Appeal is opposed by the respondents. It is maintained on behalf of the respondents that the appellant committed a glaring fraud as he, through bogus means, had managed to get himself appointed as PTC teacher, whereas the appellant neither applied for the post of PTC teacher, nor was interviewed nor was selected by any selection committee, as per record. It is further stated that since the allegations were already in existence and proceedings were pending, the same were concluded under Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules 1999 and even otherwise there was no substantial disparity between E&D Rules 1999 and PRSO 2000 as regards award of punishments etc. It is next pointed out that the dispatch record/register was available and intact and the concerned authority had verified on the first page of the dispatch register that no appointment of any teacher had been made from 12-1-1993 to 16-4-1993. As regards the loss of few pages from the register, those pages did not relate to the appellant and moreover, the dispatch register being quite old, there remained the possibility of wear and tear which did not make any material difference as regards the questionability of the appointment of the appellant. It is finally stated that the officer who had verified the genuineness of the appointment of the appellant was not supposed to do so as he was never asked by any officer of the department to verify and that the antecedents of that officer (Exh.-Dy. DEO, Ch. Muhammad Shafi) were doubtful and as he had since retired, no action could be taken against him. It is finally maintained that full opportunity was given to the appellant to defend himself, but he failed to show from any record that his appointment order was genuine.
4. I have considered contentions from both sides and also gone through the relevant record as made available. I find that the appellant 'claims to have been appointed as PTC teacher through orders No,1/1- 93/795 dated 29-4-1993. As per record and verification of the first page of the relevant dispatch register, no such appointment was made on this date. As per record/dispatch register, the appointment of one Akhtar Hussain is shown against dispatch No,795. This appointment was also later on cancelled, being doubtful etc. I have physically examined the dispatch register. I have no doubt in my mind that this dispatch register is the original one, I do not subscribe to the view that this dispatch register had been fabricated by the present departmental authorities in order to cause damage to the appellant or to get him removed from service.
Appellant was given full opportunity to defend himself by the department but he failed to prove his appointment as PTC teacher to be genuine. Learned counsel has referred to the principle of locus poenitentiae. I find that when the very orders are doubtful and illegal, this principle could not be quoted in support. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in their judgment reported as 2000 SCM R 907 and also PLD 1992 SC 207, when any order is illegal, no rights could be gained to continue in service on the basis of such illegal orders. I- find substance in the arguments on behalf of the respondents that the appellant had managed to get this appointment as PTC teacher in connivance with some dishonest elements in the department, whereas he was never selected for appointment as PTC teacher.
5. For the reasons given above, appeal is found devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.