' JEHAN ZAIB BURKI (MEMBER-IV).--- All the three appeals are being disposed of by this single judgment as common questions of law and facts are involved.
2. The appellants were removed from service vide a single order No,3148/E-I, dated 10-12-2005. The appellants filed departmental appeals dated 23-12-2005 which were rejected vide the respondent's order dated 3-2-2006 (Endorsed to the appellants on 2-3-2006). Aggrieved with the above action, the instant appeals were filed before the Tribunal on 24-3-2006.
3. Briefly speaking, according to the appellants, they were appointed vide the respondent's orders dated 30-9-1993. However, despite verification of their appointment orders at the time of joining the job, proceedings were initiated on the charge of obtaining bogus appointments. The appellants state that six different senior officers inquired into the above allegation during the period from 1996 to 2004 at various times but their appointment orders were found genuine and they were exonerated of the allegations. The appellants state that charge-sheets dated 2-6-2005 under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, were served on them on the allegations that they had managed to get bogus appointments as PTC teachers. They denied the allegations. However, the Inquiry Committee did not accept the same and started proceedings.
Instead of recording statements of the witnesses and allowing the appellants to cross-examine them, the Inquiry Committee simply required the appellants to answer certain questions in writing.
It was contended that without holding a proper inquiry, the appellants were held guilty arbitrarily and the impugned orders dated 10-12-2005 were passed, imposing on them the penalty of the removal from service. The departmental appeals filed by them against the above penalty were rejected by the respondents.
4. It was argued that disciplinary proceedings on identical allegations 'had for the first time been initiated against the appellants during the year 1996 under the provision of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975. Thereafter, five other officers enquired into the same matter, at different times but found the appellants innocent. However, in violation of section 0 of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, proceedings under the above Ordinance were initiated whereas these were required to be conducted under the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975. Moreover, the proceedings by the Inquiry Committee were conducted in question/ answer form which was against the law laid down by the Tribunal as well as by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the matter. It was contended that the Inquiry Committee failed to examine the then Dy. DEO, Nankana Sahib. His signatures on different documents were not sent to the Handwriting Expert for comparison with reference to his signatures on the appointment order in question.
5. The respondents have vehemently resisted the appeals and. Have stated that during the course of a regular inquiry held, it had been established that the appointment orders of the appellants had never been issued by the competent authority. It was pointed out that during the course of a regular inquiry, it had transpired that the appellants were domiciled in District Kasur but had got themselves appointed in District Sheikhupura. Moreover, there was no evidence that the appellants had remained posted in any school of Sheikhupura nor had they received any salary therefrom.
The respondents denied that any regular inquiry had been held prior to the present inquiry conducted under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. It was contended that the appellants were provided a fair opportunity during the inquiry to cross- examine the witnesses and no illegality had been committed by them. It was argued that the then Dy. DEO, Nankana Sahib, namely Mr. Muhammad Zafarullah Khan who had since retired from service, had not owned the appointment letters in respect of the appellants and had declared the same as bogus, self-made, self-prepared and self-managed. It was further stated that during personal hearing granted to the appellants by the competent authority the appellants had been shown a letter addressed to respondent No,2. (the competent authority) in which the then Dy. DEO, Nankana Sahib had declared the appellants' appointments as bogus. However, the appellants had failed to offer any comments on the said letter and had remained silent. It was contended that in view of this conduct on the part of the appellants, there was no need to send the signatures of the then Dy. DEO, Nankana Sahib to the Handwriting Expert for comparison.
6. Arguments of the parties have been heard and relevant record has been perused.
7. In view of the contentions raised by the appellants in the instant appeals as well as during arguments, the appeals are admitted and proceedings have been taken in hand to evaluate the respective merits/demerits of the arguments put forth by the appellants as well as the respondents.
8. The impugned penalty had been awarded to the appellants vide the respondent's orders dated 10-12-2005. It had been passed by the authority i,e, Dy. DEO (M-EE), Tehsil Kasur. In this order it was stated that the authority had examined the record and the documents produced. It was further stated that the authority had cross-examined all the appellants and had also sought the written evidence of Mr. Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, the then Dy. DEO the then appointing authority Nankana Sahib, who had retired. Again it was mentioned in the same impugned order dated 10-12- 2005, that the aforementioned Mr. Muhammad Zafarullah Khan had declared the appointments of the appellants as bogus and had confirmed that the appointment orders of the appellants did not carry his signatures. The following remarks contained in the above mentioned impugned order are worth perusal:-- "On the basis of my investigation during the personal hearing, it is finally proved that the appointment orders of Mr. Muhammad Sarwar PTC, Mr, Muhammad Ismail, PTC and Mr. Muhammad Rafique, PTC are self made and bogus and they neither served and not received any salary from Tehsil Nankana Sahib (SKP) before their transfer to Kasur District.
9. The statement of the then appointing authority Mr. Muhammad Zafarullah Khan had been annexed by the respondents along with their written objections. The said statement consisted of a letter dated 10-11-2005 addressed by the said Mr. Muhammad Zafarullah Khan exDy. DEO, Nankana Sahib to the authority issuing the impugned orders, dated 10-12-2005 in response to his letter No,2843 dated 20-10-2005. In the said letter, Mr. Muhammad Zafarullah Khan had declared the appointment orders of the appellants as bogus, self-made, self-prepared and self-manufactured.
It was this very letter which had been shown by the authority during the course of personal hearing to the appellants at the time of passing the impugned orders of punishment dated 10-12-2005.
While examining the said letter, it was observed that on the reverse side of. The same, Mr. Muhammad Zafarullah Khan had taken a complete somersault and had stated as under:- "My contention is that by my orders these persons:--
(1) Did obtain employment as PTC teachers.
(2) They were not transferred.
(3) They did not join the service as PTC teachers."
10. The Departmental Representative who was present today was asked as to under what circumstances Mr. Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, after declaring the appointment orders of the appellants as bogus in his letter dated 10-11-2005, had in the same letter resiled from his aforementioned statement and had contended that the appellants had actually obtained employment as PTC Teacher on his order? Departmental Representative was unable to clarify the above contradiction. He was further asked as to why the Inquiry Committee had failed to summon the said Mr. Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, Ex-Dy. DEO, Nankana Sahib as a witness during the proceedings and record his statement? Moreover, why the appellants had not been given an opportunity to cross-examine the above mentioned vital witnesses? The Departmental Representative failed to give any clarification whatsoever.
11. In view of the foregoing facts, it stands established that the so-called regular inquiry conducted against the appellants by the Inquiry Committee, had not been held properly. The said Inquiry Committee should have summoned Mr. Muhammad Zafarullah Khan and should have recorded his statement. The appellants, thereafter, should have been allowed to cross-examine the said officer. It has been correctly contended by the appellants that the signatures of. Mr. Muhammad Zafarullah Khan should have been sent to the Handwriting Expert to determine as to whether the appointment orders of the appellants had been signed by him or not? In addition to the above, the authority also appears to have conducted himself in an illegal manner. By choosing to start investigating the matter himself, as is evident from the impugned orders of penalty dated 10-12- 2005, the authority assumed the role of an Inquiry Officer. In case, the authority felt that the inquiry conducted was deficient in any respect, a de novo inquiry should have been ordered. As things stand, by choosing to conduct inquiry proceedings himself, the authority had forfeited its status of a neutral Umpire. It amounted to sitting in judgment in one's own cause.
12. In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 10-12-2005 and 3-2-2006 are set aside from the date of issue. Resultantly, the appellants would stand reinstated in service from the date they were removed from service i,e, 10-12-2005. However, the respondents are directed to hold a regular inquiry under the applicable law and rules and finalize the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date a copy of this judgment is received in their office. The question of payment of back benefits and treatment of the intervening period during which the appellants remained out of service on account of imposition of the impugned penalty, shall depend on the outcome of the regular inquiry directed above.
13. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties be informed.