Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Veterinary Assistant (BS-06) on contract basis for a period of three years vide Respondent No, 1 Office Order No, 2238-41 dated 09.10.2006. Afterwards his services were regularized vide Order No, 556-59 dated 06.01.2010. He was departmentally proceeded against by DO (Live Stock). Dr. Rana Sajjad Ahmad was appointed to conduct probe vide Order No, 3679 dated 22.08.2010. Thereafter regular inquiry was ordered vide No, 4556-57 dated 06.10.2011 under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 appointing Dr. Muhammad Hafeez as Inquiry Officer on the charge of misconduct/ deceitfulness -- submitted bogus documents for his appointment. Having received the report of inquiry he was issued Show Cause-Cum-Personal Hearing Notice No, 6222 dated 21.11.2011 under Section 13(4) of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. The Competent Authority/Respondent No 1 on the basis of findings of a defective inquiry and observing his reply to the Show Cause Notice not satisfactory awarded him penalty of termination from Government service with effect from the date of joining and recovery of all salaries/allowances vide Order No, 6366-73 dated 07.12.2011. He preferred departmental appeal to the Appellate Authority/Respondent No, 2, who vide impugned Order No, 103-6 dated 16.01.2012 rejected it. Feeling aggrieved he has filed the instant appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned orders of the departmental authorities being based on inquiry conducted against law are not sustainable. The allegation that he deceived the authority by submitting bogus documents at the time of his - appointment do not fall within the ambit of misconduct as defined in the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006.In fact he submitted genuine documents before the authorities. Thereafter, Matriculation Certificate and ID Card presented by him were duly verified by the department itself before issuing him appointment order and as such he served the department for more than 5 years. He argued that the appellant was appointed alongwith so many others who were over aged at the time of their appointment but were still working in the department. The Inquiry Officer issued him a questioner. Neither his statement was recorded nor any witness was produced to prove that he deceived the authorities. He placed reliance on judgment of the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan reported vide 2007 PLC (CS) 85 and 265. No effort was made by the Inquiry Officer to ascertain genuineness of the documents submitted by him and determine who placed on record the disputed copies because personal file was in custody of the respondents and not the appellant. A valuable right had accrued in favour of the appellant because the appellant rendered six years blotless service in the department on the basis of appointment orders issued by the appointing authority after completing due formalities. Having rendered service, he was paid salary and it cannot be recovered. He has been discriminated against as so many similarly appointed persons are still serving under the same authority. Even the appellate authority failed to appreciate legal and factual deficiencies while rejecting mechanically his appeal. He prayed that the appeal may be allowed, impugned orders set aside and the appellant may be reinstated in service.
3. Learned Deputy District Attorney assisted by the Departmental Representatives opposed contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant. He maintained that the appellant submitted bogus documents to the Departmental Selection Committee seeking appointment against the post of Veterinary Assistant. Date of birth as recorded in copies of Matriculation Certificates was 01.10.1996 and 04.12.1976. He participated in March/April 1981 Secondary School examination. If his date of birth is taken as 04.12.1976, then he was about 5 years of age when he took matric examination which could not be possible. He deceived the authorities. Punishment was awarded after completing legal formalities. The appeal having no merits may be dismissed.
4. I have heard arguments of the learned counsels for the respective parties and have gone through the record produced. Respondents contended that two copies each of Matriculation Certificate and I.D. Card with dates of birth as 01.10.1996 and 04.12.1976 had been placed on his personal file. The appellant intentionally deceived the authority to secure his appointment as Veterinary Assistant. The inquiry conducted to establish the charges is found against law laid down by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan as reported vide 2007 PLC (CS) 85 and 265. Only a questioner was issued to the appellant. Even his statement was not recorded. No evidence was procured to ascertain who placed double copies of same documents bearing different dates of birth on personal file when it was in custody of the respondents. Genuineness of the I.D. Card had not been verified from NADRA. Neither objections were raised at the time he presented copies of documents for recruitment nor were got verified before issuing appointment order. Termination from service is none of the punishments provided under the Punjab. Employees Efficiency; Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. Contention of the respondents that action was taken as per terms and conditions of appointment is not supported by the Civil Servants Act. 1974. Although he was initially appointed on contract basis but in 2009 his service was regularized and as such the Civil Servants Act, 1974 became applicable. It is settled principle of law that no one can be punished on the basis of surmises and conjectures. The impugned order was made effective retrospectively which is against settled principle of law. This is a case of further inquiry. Even the appellate authority rejected mechanically his appeal without appreciating legal deficiencies in disciplinary proceedings.
5. In view of above discussion the appeal is allowed. The impugned orders dated 07.12.2011 and 16.01.2012 of the departmental .authorities are set aside. Consequently the appellant shall stand reinstated in service from the date of termination from service. The charge of submitting bogus documents for securing appointment being of serious nature, case is remanded to the competent authority with the - direction to hold regular departmental inquiry .strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law, provide the appellant opportunity of defence and decide the case afresh on merit. The status of intervening 'period be decided in the light of findings of the inquiry proceedings.