' ARSHAD BIN AHMAD (MEMBER-IV).--- Mst. Riaz Batool, Ex.-PTC teacher aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22-12-2003 imposing the penalty of removal from service and subsequent rejection of appeal through impugned order dated 12-3-2004 has come in appeal before this Tribunal.
2. Arguing the case, the learned counsel submitted the facts of the case that Mst. Riaz Batool was appointed as PTC teacher on 31-5-1982. She applied for leave from 3-3-1991 to 4-6-1991, which was duly sanctioned by the competent authority. She joining her post on 5-6-1991 at Government Girls Primary School, 51(MB) Tehsil Khushab, District Sargodha, (now District Khushab) but she was not allowed to join her post as the then Headmistress informed that she has been transferred and that she should report for duty at her new school i,e, Government Girls Primary School, 228/MB after the summer vacations, she was posted to the new place on 1-9-1991. After joining, she on 2-9-1991 applied for leave for 90 days, which was sanctioned recommended by the Headmistress.
Thereafter, the appellant had been applying for leave on different occasion on account of maternity/sick leave till 25-10-1993 for which she had been submitting leave application along with medical certificates. After availing such leave she submitted her joining report on 26-10-1993 but she was not allowed to resume duty. She was called by the respondent No,1/D.E.O. (W-EE), Khushab and informed verbally that she was no more in service and that she could not be allowed to resume her duty. It has further been stated during the period of her alleged absence she was never asked to resume duty or ever asked to explain her absence. She had to approach the senior .Officers and the concerned Minister through various applications for redressal of her grievance and finally on receipt of the direction of the Secretary Education on 28-12-1999 departmental proceedings were initiated against her under E&D Rules, 1999 and was served with a charge sheet on 18-5-2000 for wilful absence from duty. Due to inordinate delay in the proceedings, she had to seek the intervention of the Provincial Ombudsman, who issued directions to the Secretary, Education to decide her case. She was called for personal hearing by respondent No,1, who decided the case on 22-12-2003 imposing the major penalty of removal from service under P.R.S.O., 2000.
Her departmental appeal dated 17-1-2004 was rejected on 12-3-2004. Hence, this appeal.
3. The learned counsel has prayed for setting the impugned order aside saying that, as per rules on medical grounds could not have been refused. It has been stated that inquiry was conducted in a slipshod manner and no witness was produced nor any record was allowed to be perused or examined. It took 13 years to decide her case and a decision taken most injudiciously. It has been prayed to reinstate her in service with all consequential back benefits.
4. The respondents on the other hand have stated in their parawise comments that the said PTC teacher/appellant was duly sanctioned leave from 3-3-1991 to 31-3-1991 and 1-4-1991 and 4-6-1991 without pay. She was transferred from Government Girls Elementary School, Bijar and adjusted in Government Girls Primary School, 28-MB. As per record, she has found absent from 5-6-1991 onwards. She was proceeded under E&D Rules, 1999 and later under PRSO-2000 as amended in 2001 on its promulgation. She was removed from service vide order dated 22-12-2003 after observing all codal formalities. Her departmental appeal was rejected by respondent No,2 i,e, E.D.O., Education, Khushab on 12-3-2004.
5. I have heard the parties and perused the record. The facts of the case are that, the appellant had applied for leave which was neither accepted nor rejected. It was only after the intervention of the Secretary Education and later the Provincial Ombudsman that the respondents decided the disciplinary case against the appellant. In between the intervening period, the respondent never bothered to call her for duty or called her to explain her absence. They instead kept the case pending and decided it after 13 long years. It reflects a typical attitude of indifference or apathy which later transformed into total 'chaos resulting in grave omission. In May, 2000, the appellant was proceeded against under E&D Rules 1999 and finally the punishment orders passed on 22-12- 2003 under PRSO-2000. It is strange that proceeding under E&D Rules, 1999 initiated in May, 2000 i,e, ended up under P.R.S.O., 2000 in December, 2003. Section 13 of the P.R.S.O., 2000, clearly lays down that all proceedings pending immediately before commencement of this ordinance against any civil servant under any law or rules, shall continue under the said laws as provided thereunder. The entire proceedings thus are null and void as it could not have been conducted under two different set of laws or rules simultaneously. It is sad to note that the respondents. Nos .1 and 2 holding responsible positions were so blissfully ignorant of the Act and the rules, ibid that they passed an order which by no stretch of imagination can be deemed to be valid under any law. Therefore, I have no hesitation in accepting the appeal and reinstating the appellant in service with full consequential benefits as per rules. The Secretary of the Education Department is directed to educate his field formations about the laws, rules and regulations governing the personnel of his department. There shall be no order as to cost.