Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while posted as SST/Incharge Headmaster Government High School Jhamat Shumali Darya Khan District Bhakkar was departmentally proceeded against vide show cause notice dated 17.09.2011 under the Punjab Employees Efficiency Discipline & Accountability Act, 20Q6 on the following charges:-- "1. During the visit on 10.09.2011 only 55 students were present out of 277. Attendance enrolment ratio comes to 20% only. School was looking like a desert. No plantation was made. The discipline was in dilapidated condition. Roznamcha was not prepared. School lab was filled with dust.
2. According to inquiry report regarding fake enrolment you fetch the students of a private school to show your school strength.
3. Lack of interest in school matters.
4. Private persons were teaching instead of regular teachers."
The competent Authority/Respondent No, 1 finding his reply to the above show cause notice not satisfactory awarded the punishment of reduction to lower post as EST for five years vide order dated 01.11.2011. He preferred departmental appeal/representation to the Respondent No, 2 who converted the same into reduction to five lower stages in pay scale vide order dated 24.01.2012.
Feeling aggrieved he filed the instant appeal before this Tribunal under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned orders are against the law and facts. That the department has not held regular departmental inquiry into the matter against the appellant to sift out truth. The allegations levelled against hilt are vehemently denied with the proof that Secretary School Govt. of the Punjab awarded him appreciation certificate for showing 80% result in Secondary School Annual Examination 2010 hence the charges automatically vanishes. Respondent No, 1 i,e, EDO (Education) was not competent to initiate departmental proceedings against the appellant as he was himself complainant and witness. As such in the absence of any independent corroborating evidence no guilt could be attributed to him by Respondent No, 1.
3. On the contrary the learned Deputy District Attorney as well as Departmental Representative vehemently opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant. They maintained that the impugned orders are in accordance with the facts of the case. The appellant was found guilty of gross misconduct, hence he was rightly punished after observing all the codal formalities.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Dy. District Attorney, departmental representative and have gone through the available record minutely. It is settled principle of law that fact finding/probe cannot be used against the civil servant for infliction of major penalty. The Respondent No, 1 awarded the appellant a major penalty on trivial nature charges which prima facie seems to be an outgrowth of his some personal grudge and vengeance against him. The tentative assessme nt of allegations against the appellant is not tenable in the eyes of law unless the same is routed through regular inquiry. It is held by this Tribunal as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan time and again that fact finding inquiry could never be a substitute for a regular inquiry and it could not be used against the appellant for awarding penalty.
The appellant was also awarded appreciation letter by Secretary School Govt. of the Punjab for showing very good result in Secondary School Certificate annual Examination, 2010 which speaks about his good performance and enough to rebut the charges levelled against him.
6. In view of the above discussion appeal of the appellant is partially accepted. The impugned order dated 24.01.2012 is modified and the penalty of reduction to five lower stages in pay scale is converted into censure.