' HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.--- Brief facts leading to this writ petition are that the petitioners were appointed as SV Teachers (BS-9) vide order, dated 4-3-1993 on recommendations of District Recruitment Committee, Gujrat, both of them joined their duties and started functioning, however, in the meantime one Mst. Saiqa Khanum filed a writ petition before this Court, which was decided on 14-4-1993 directing the Education Department that the recruitment policy of the Government of Punjab be strictly followed and all the appointments be made on merit.
2. Misinterpreting the said judgment of this Court both the petitioners were terminated from service, they filed Writ Petition No,11629 of 1993 contending that their cases are distinguishable to that of Saiqa Khanum and others as they did not get appointment on any political motivation, rather their appointment was purely on merit. This writ petition was disposed of with a direction to decide the matter within two weeks vide order, dated 7-9-1993. Ironically, the departmental authorities took approximately two years for decision of the matter and finally on 28-2-1995 the petitioners were reinstated.
3. Even after reinstatement, the petitioners were continuously victimized on one pretext or the other and the petitioners had to approach Punjab Service Tribunal but their appeals were diminished and the petitioners filed C.P:L.As. Before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. The appeals were accepted by the Honourable Supreme Court but the matter was remanded to the Punjab Service Tribunal for fresh decision on merit. After remand by the Supreme Court the 'learned Tribunal accepted the appeals of the petitioners vide judgment, dated 19-4-2004 with a specific direction to pay all back-benefits to them from the date of their termination from service to the date of reinstatement.
4. Learned counsel submits that judgment of the Service Tribunal was not implemented, the petitioner had to file an application for implementation of the same and on notice by the P.S.T. The departmental representative appeared on 27-10-2004 and made a statement that the payment of all back-benefits has been made. Adds that another inquiry was got conducted against the petitioners and after thorough probe the Inquiry Officer concluded that both the petitioners were appointed on 4-3-1993, the department had no proper record to evaluate their merit as the original merit list could not be produced hence any complaint against them cannot be entertained. A new DEO is posted in the District, who has reopened the case once again and issued notices to the petitioners threatening their dismissal. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners are performing their duties with full devotion but they are being dragged into repeated inquiries through different modes, which otherwise is violative of Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate-General stood behind the departmental action but could not advance his case when he is asked that how the department can justify the proposed action against the petitioners and that too with no fault of them.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. Certain facts are undisputed even today and those are:---
(i) The petitioners were appointed in the year 1993 on the recommendations of the Selection Committee.
(ii) The petitioners' eligibility is not under challenge/not disputed.
(iii) The petitioners' suitability was determined and appointment orders were issued by the competent authority.
(iv) The petitioners started performing their duties but later on they were terminated.
(v) The petitioners filed writ petition, this Court issued directions, their cases were examined in pursuance of the directions of this Court and they were reinstated into service in the year 1995.
(vi) Different inquiries were conducted and petitioners could not be found deficient in their eligibility threshold and no political motivation could be found by the departmental authorities behind the petitioners' appointment.
(vii) Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan is much clear, which is reproduced as follows:--- "13. No person:---
(a) shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once; or
(b) shall, when accused of an offence, be compelled to be a witness against himself."
8. After hearing both the parties at length and perusal of record, I am of the view that the impugned notices are departure from the specific provisions of Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan as the petitioners cannot only be vexed twice but they cannot be proceeded against repeatedly.
9. Undisputedly, the petitioners are being prosecuted/are being made the subject of repeated inquiries, which offends the specific provisions of Article 13(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan, thus, keeping in view all the circumstances mentioned above, the impugned notices are declared illegal, without lawful authority and are set aside.
' Writ petition is allowed in the above terms.
THE END revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.