' MUHAMMAD AFZAL (MEMBER-I).---Appeal brings in challenge the impugned orders dated 18-6- 2003 vide which the appellant was awarded penalty of dismissal from service on account of having produced a fake matriculation certificate as well as recovery of whole amount received by him while working as PTC teacher. Appellant filed departmental appeal, but as the same was not decided within the statutory period, present appeal has been filed in this Tribunal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has addressed his arguments at length pointing out that the appellant admits that he did not possess matriculation certificate at the time of recruitment as PTC teacher, but he had also indicated so in his application addressed to the then Minister Education in 1989. It is further stated that the appellant had also in the same application requested for appointment against class-IV post, but he was rather recruited as PTC teacher through order dated 25-1-1989 in the light of the orders of the Minister Education. It is stated that the appellant kept working as such, when he was proceeded against under E&D Rules 1999 on ground of having committed forgery by producing bogus certificate for appointment as PTC teacher. Appellant was consequently removed from service. Appellant challenged this order through his earlier Appeal No, 99/02. Through judgment dated 17-7-2002 by this Tribunal, the case was remanded to the concerned authority for holding an inquiry. Appellant was, therefore, reinstated. It is further stated that after reinstatement appellant was proceeded against, firstly, under RSO and thereafter under E&D Rules 1999, on allegations of misconduct, production of bogus certificates, forgery and loss to Government exchequer. It is argued by learned counsel that switch over to another set of rules from one set of rules also vitiated the proceedings. It is next stated that respondents have been adding new allegations in the charge-sheet from time to time. It is further stated that inquiry was not properly held and appellant was not given access to record. It is also pointed out that it was not the fault of the appellant if he was appointed as PTC teacher because the appellant had made it known to the said authority that he did not possess the matriculation certificate, but even then he was recruited as PTC teacher. It is further averred that the appellant had not committed any forgery and all such allegations were baseless and if there was lapse it was on the part of the concerned authority and not on the part of the appellant. It is further argued that the appellant was victimized due to prejudiced attitude of the concerned authority. It is finally urged that the appellant had recovered salaries on account of work done by him and, therefore, he could not have been compelled to give recovery of pay and allowances already recovered by him in good faith.
3. Appeal is opposed by the respondents. It is maintained by the respondents that as per record, appellant had produced a matriculation certificate and PTC certificate and, therefore, he was appointed as regular PTC teacher on the recommendations of the Education Minister. It is further stated that after some time, doubts were raised about genuineness of the academic certificate prepared by the appellant for securing the post of PTC teacher and that matriculation certificate of the appellant was referred to the concerned Board of Education. This certificate was declared bogus and fake by the said Board. It is, therefore, pointed out on behalf of the respondents that the appellate did not at any stage point out that he was not matriculate. Rather he produced copies of matriculation certificate which turned out to be fake. It is also stated the proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and in accordance with the direction given by this Tribunal. It is next averred that the appellant has defrauded the department and had committed a criminal act and therefore, he did not deserve any sympathy.
4. I have considered contentions from both sides and also perused the relevant record. I find that the appellant had earlier filed an appeal in this Tribunal. The case was remanded to the department mainly on the ground that the impugned orders had not been passed by the competent authority in accordance with law. I find that thereafter proceedings were properly conducted and concluded in the authority, in accordance with law. Appellant was associated with the inquiry Appellant states that he had submitted an application to the Minister (in 1989) in which he had indicated that he was not matriculate. A copy of the said application has also been enclosed with the appeal. However, I find that this copy is undated. Moreover, the respondents deny having received any such application which indicated that the appellant was non- matriculate. I have gone through the relevant record including the service book and also the matriculation certificate presented by the appellant. The fact is proved beyond doubt from record that the appellant did present matriculation certificate at the time of recruitment. The appellant claimed that he had passed matriculation under Roll No,28561 from Lahore Board in 1983 and obtained 591 marks. The fact is accordingly recorded in his service book and the appellant placed signatures against this entry in the service book. If the appellant had not passed matriculation, he should not have placed his signatures against this entry in the service book. I have also seen the verification done by the Board. The Board declared his matriculation certificate as bogus.
According to the Board certificate under the same Roll No, had actually been issued to one entered his name as well as name of his father and presented that certificate for recruitment. Thereafter he presented certificate of PTC on that basis. Appellant cannot say that his appointment as regular PTC teacher was made by the concerned authority at its own knowing that the appellant was not matriculate. Obviously, it is case of Baazen fraud and forgery. Appellant has been dealt with rather leniently as no criminal case of forgery and fraud has been registered against him. I do not find force in the contention that if there was any lapse, it was on the part of the concerned authority not of the appellant who was actually the beneficiary of that fraud.
5. For the detailed reasons given above, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned orders. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.