Appellant is ex-Secondary School Teacher (SST)/Assistant Education Officer (AEO) District Narowal, who was proceeded against as per charge-sheet dated 18.2.1998 on the allegations that she was involved in full filling motives of Mst Ruqia Zaheer, ex-Deputy District Education Officer, Narowal, and she allowed to join illegal appointees and also helped to pay them salaries while they were fake appointees and that she had been instigating bogus appointees to get their appointment orders from the office. As per statement of allegation, the appellant alongwith co-accused Deputy District Education Officer and five others was alleged to have been involved in the bogus appointment of atleast 11 PTC teachers. Inquiry was held. Appellant alongwith others/co-accused was held guilty of gross misconduct/misuse of powers and through impugned orders dated 20.7.1999 she was removed from service under the relevant E&D Rules, by the competent authority. Appellant filed Service Appeal No, 3526/99 in this Tribunal challenging the impugned orders of her removal from service: The following orders were passed on initial hearing of the case on 1.2.2000 by the then learned Member-III, of this Tribunal who was heard this appeal: "Issue notice to all the respondents for provision of complete record of the case. Impugned orders dated 20.7.1999 is suspended in the meantime. To come up on 15.2.2000". In compliance of these orders of this Tribunal, following order dated 26.7.2000 was passed by the department: "The order dated 20.7.1999 issued by this department is hereby suspended till final decision of the case by PST." The appellant was, therefore, allowed to joint duty and apparently she started working. In the meantime case (Appeal No, 3526/99) kept coming up for hearing before the Tribunal and notices were sent to the respondents in routine, summoning parawise comments. The department presumed that suspension of operation of the impugned orders remained effective. It appears from further proceedings before the Tribunal that appellant lost interest to pursue her appeal and through orders dated 30.1.2002, the appeal was dismissed due to default on the part of the appellant. Therefore, the earlier orders of this Tribunal vide which operation of the impugned orders was suspended, also automatically abated in consequence of dismissal of service appeal on 30.1.2002. Appellant, did not file any application for restoration of appeal till 31.7.2002, whereas she reached the age of superannuation on 14.8.2002. It seems that the appellant did not take interest in filing any application for restoration of appeal as she was waiting for her superannuation. Application of the appellant for restoration of appeal dated 31.7.2002 came up for proper hearing before the Tribunal on 17.10.2002. Although application was barred by inordinate delay, but the same was accepted and appeal was restored by the Tribunal through orders dated 17.10.2002 with the following observations: "The appeal is restored to provide a fair opportunity to plead her case. After dismissal in default the stay order has automatically been cancelled. No new stay order is granted." This order of the Tribunal dated 17.10.2002 was however, recalled by Tribunal (then Learned Member-IV) as per orders dated 8.1.2003 with the following observations: "Application for restoration of appeal was submitted concealing all the fact--C.M. was kept pending for arguments which was presented on 27.12.2002 both by the appellant arid the respondents. Today it is to 10.45 a.m. case was taken up for hearing at 9 O'clock and has been kept pending till now. It has been called again and again but none has turned up. Perhaps the Appellant is fully aware of the fraud committed by her--that is why she has adopted a better way of nonappearance, Alter perusal of record and hearing arguments the impugned orders dated 17.10.2002 being contrary to the facts is recalled. The file is non-existing which has been dismissed in default since 3.4.2000, therefore, the appeal is filed." These orders of this Tribunal were challenged by the appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petition No, 580-L/2003. This civil petition came up for hearing before the apex Court on 8.12.2005 and it was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan as per'following orders: "learned counsel on reconsideration opts to withdraw the petition and is accordingly dismissed."
2. While Service Appeal No, 3526/99 was dismissed by this Tribunal, the appellant filed an application before the concerned administrative authority for issuance of her retirement notification and grant of retirement benefits on the ground that she had been performing her duties till she reached the age of retirement. Her representation was rejected through impugned orders dated 3.11.2004 with the following observations: "You are hereby informed that as you have been awarded major penalty of removal from service vide Government of Punjab Education Department orders dated 20.7.1999 while posed as AEO, therefore, question of issuance of notification of retirement on attaining the age of superannuation does not arise. "-Similarly, through impugned orders dated 20:9.2004, direction was given to the appellant to give recovery of salary drawn by her from the date of joining upto the date of her superannuation as her joining was illegal and without legal justification. Appellant has filed present service appeal to challenge the orders dated 20.9.2004 and the orders dated 3.11.2004.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued the case at length. Learned counsel candidly admits the fact that earlier Appeal No, 3526/99 had been dismissed by this Tribunal due to default and the orders of restoration of the said appeal had also been recalled by this Tribunal. Learned counsel also concedes that civil petition filed by the appellant challenging the orders dated 8.1.2003 of this Tribunal, was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan as the appellant had opted to withdraw the said petition. However, it is maintained that the appellant still remained entitled to receive pensionary benefits because the appellant had been allowed to join duty as the orders of removal of the appellant from service had been suspended by the Tribunal.
Appellant had performed duties thereafter legally as she was allowed to do so. It is also stated that the appellant had taken-over charge on grounds of suspension of impugned orders and when the appellant reached the age of superannuation on 14.8.2002, the appellant was not aware that the orders vide which stay was granted had been withdrawn or service appeal had been dismissed due to default. It is pointed out that fact was established that the appellant was in service and the orders of her joining were not withdrawn by the competent authority before appellant's reaching the age of superannuation and, therefore, the appellant was entitled to pensionary benefits. It is further urged that certain orders were passed by the Secretary Education withdrawing the orders of her joining duty, but such orders could not be issued and could not be enforced from back date.
Learned counsel has also referred to Section 12 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, maintaining that there was no need for issuing any notification of retirement of the appellant because in terms of this section ibid, the appellant was to retire automatically on reaching the age of superannuation and as no orders had been passed by that time withdrawing orders of her joining duty, the appellant had to be allowed normal retirement benefits. Learned counsel also contends that the appellant was not alone to face disciplinary proceedings regarding illegal appointments of PTC teachers. It is maintained that six other persons i,e, Zahida Perveen, Ruqia Zaheer, Attia Minhas, Sabir Hussain, Irshad Ahmad and Muhammad Azam were also facing the same proceedings on the same allegations. They had also been punished almost similarly. They had filed appeals before this Tribunal and their appeals were accepted and the judgment of this Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan.
5. I have considered contentions from both sides and also gone through the relevant record. I find that the appellant had earlier filed Appeal No, 3526/99 to challenge the orders of her removal from service dated 20.7.1999 on allegations of illegal appointments. I agree with learned counsel for the appellant to the extent that the appellant was not directly involved in illegal appointments because the appointments were made by the Deputy District Education Officer. Main allegation against the appellant was to allow the appointees against the bogus appointment orders and to enable and help them to draw salaries. However, I find that when Service Appeal No, 3526/99 filed by the appellant challenging orders of her removal from service, stood dismissed by this Tribunal and stay orders vide which operation of the impugned orders was suspended also stood vacated while the appellant had not yet reached the age of superannuation, penalty of removal from service awarded to the appellant stood confirmed and she ceased to be entitled to receive normal pension .However, at the same time, the appellant deserves some allowance and leniency because appeals filed by co-accused including main accused who was responsible for making bogus/illegal appointments, had been accepted by this Tribunal and judgments of this Tribunal in their cases had been upheld by the apex Court. Section 18 of Punjab Civil Servants Act can be invoked in cases of this nature. The appellant could be given the benefit as envisaged by Section 18 ibid on the ground that while her appeal in this Tribunal against penalty of removal from service stood dismissed due to her own conduct, she deserved to be considered for grant of compassionate allowance, in terms of Section 18(3) of Punjab Civil Servants Act, on the ground that appeals filed by the co-accused against removal from service, had been accepted by this Tribunal and the judgments of this Tribunal had been up-held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan.
However, I have no doubt in my mind that the appellant, the punishment of removal from service having been confirmed in consequence of dismissal of her service appeal, was not entitled to normal pensionary benefits and was also not entitled to be considered to have retired on superannuation. Therefore, considering the facts of the case as highlighted above, while prayer of the appellant for considering the appellant to have retired on superannuation and grant of normal retirement benefits is dismissed, it is ordered that the case of the appellant for grant of compassionate grounds in terms of Section 18(3) of Punjab Civil. Servants Act 1975 shall be considered sympathetically by the competent authority. Moreover, no recovery shall be made on account of any pay and allowances received by her as the same had been received by the appellant in good faith in consequence of acceptance of her joining by the concerned authority when impugned orders had been temporary suspended by the Tribunal.
6. Appeal is disposed of in above terms.