Through this single judgment, the above titled appeals are being decided as common question of law & facts are involved in them and have emanated from the same orders, impugned before this Tribunal.
2. Brief facts are that vide Order No, SO(E&D-II)1-19/2009 dated 18.07.2009, Secretary School Education being competent authority appointed Mr. Khalid Latif Qureshi Sr. HM GHS Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore as inquiry officer to proceed against the appellants and one another namely Liaqat Ali, Assistant Education Officer (Male), Ferozwala in terms of Section 5 read with Section 9 of the PEEDA Act, 2006 on the following allegations/charges:- Name of the appellant Allegations/Charges Mr. Munir Hussain, Deputy District Education Officer (Male), Ferozwala,During his posting as Deputy District- Education Officer (Male), Ferozewala, he committed the following irregularities:
(1) He made inductions of the following five persons as PST: i) Mr. Abbas Ali son of Shabbir Hussain, resident of Mohallah Chah badraywala, Sharaqpur Sharif, Sheikhupura, having CNIC No. 35401-6686024-3. ii) Mr. Khalid Mehmood Anwar son of Muhammad Ismael, resident of Mohallah Araiyanwala. Sheikhupura, having CNIC No. 35404-3614681- 5. iii) Mr. Muhammad Blyas son of Muhammad Saqib, resident of Abid Street, Mohallah-Chah Badraywala, Sharqpur Sherif, Sheikhupura, having CNIC No. 35200-1010001.5. iv) Mr. Shahbaz Ahmad son of Habib Ahmad, resident of Pharyanwala, Sharqpur, Sheikhupura having CNIC No. 35401- 4736717-9 v) Mr. Shabbir Hussain son of Muhammad Sharif, resident of House No. 1 Street Eidgah, Sharaqpur Sharif, Sheikhupura, having CNIC No. 35401-1743310-7 2) He compulsorily retired Mr. Shahhaz Ahmad son of Habib Ahmad, a fake teacher.
3) He prepared pension papers, service book and other documents and tried to get pensionary and other benefits fraudulently released to Mr. Shahbaz Ahmad son of Habib Ahmad, a fake teacher.
4) He prepared documents of above mentioned fake teachers and submitted to the District Accounts office Sheikhupura enabling them to get financial benefits. The documents so prepared include the Employee Master file Creation Form, the Payroll System Amendment Forms, joining report, relieving reports, last payment certificate, service book etc. 5) He did not appear before the committees constituted by the Executive District Officer (Education). Sheikhupura and the District Coordination Officer, Sheikhupura to problem the issue of fake inductions which tantamount to gross misconduct.
Mr. Muhammad Arif Deputy District Education Officer (Male)During the posting as Deputy District Education Officer
(Male) Sharqpur Sharif, he allowed Mr. Shabbir Hussain, a fake PST, to join duties as a result of issuance of transfer orders issued by the Executive District officer (Education), Sheikhupura without verification of his service record and facilitated Mr. Shabbir Hussain drawl of Salaries on bog documents in Tehsil Sharaqpur Sharif.
Mr. Muhammad Shafique, Assistant Education Officer (M), Factory Area, FerozewalaHe remained involved and helpful directly in the process of fake inductions made by Mr. Munir Hussain Deputy District Education Officer (Male), Ferozewala, which tantamount to inefficiency and misconduct.
3. The appellants submitted their independent replies to the arges /allegations by denying the same.
4. After conducting the inquiry proceedings, the inquiry submitted inquiry report Bearing No, 22/KB- 11 dated .02.2011.
5. On receiving the inquiry report the Secretary School lucation vide his order dated 15.03.2011, awarded major punishment compulsory retirement upon Munir Hussian, Minor penalty of the holding of promotion for two years upon Muhammad Arif and penalty of withholding of two increments for 5 years upon Muhammad Shafique by invoking the provision of Section 4(b)(iv), action 4(a)(v) and Section 4 (a)(ii) of the Punjab Employees Efficiency & Accountability Act, 2006 respectively.
6. Being aggrieved, departmental appeals were filed by the appellants, which were rejected by the Chief Secretary vide his order ted 17.06.2011. However, appellate authority corrected the nasty/awarded to Muhammad Shafique as withholding of annual for a period of five years.
7. Dissatisfied from the said orders, the appellants have sailed the same in the above titled service appeals.
8. Learned counsels for the appellants contends that Impugned orders are against law, fats and have been passed on the sis of surmises and conjectures; respondents have failed to discharge e burden to prove the charge, which rested on their shoulder; the tire action/proceedings initiated against the appellants were based mala fide; the inquiry officer carried out the inquiry proceedings in defective and perfunctory manner; appellants were not allowed to the relevant record and even not allowed to cross-examine on the witnesses; appellants submitted various applications to get e relevant record but no heed was paid on the genuine request of the appellants by the inquiry officer and the authority; allegations leveled on the appellants were vague, incorrect and baseless; the inquiry ricer and the authority failed to note that there was no record but still on the basis of surmises and conjecture inflicted the punishment impugned, which are not sustainable; defence taken by the appellant were not appreciated; inquiry 'officer travelled beyond his scope, hello no reliance on the inquiry report can be placed. It is prayed the service appeals be allowed, impugned orders dated 15.03.2011 an 17.06.2011 be set aside and appellants be awarded consequential relief with back benefits.
9. Conversely, learned D.A assisted by the department representative vehemently opposed the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and made his reliance on the parawise comments submitted by the department. Learned D.A further contended that the appellants during the inquiry proceedings were found guilty, hence they were lawfully inflicted punishments impugned; as the appeals are without any merit, therefore, the service appeals be dismissed.
10. Arguments heard. Record perused.
11. In order to dig out the truth, Secretary School Education in the capacity of competent authority vide order dated 18.07.2009 appointed Mr. Khalid Latif Qureshi Sr. HM GHS Allama Iqbal Town Lahore as an inquiry officer in terms of Section 5 read with Section 9 of the PEEDA Act, 2006 to carry out inquiry into the charges as mentioned above in Para No,
2. The Secretary School Education also appointed District Education Officer (M-EE), Sheikhupura as departmental representative but the said order dated 18.07.2009 is silent about the names of the witnesses to be produced before the inquiry officer in terms of sub-section (9) of the PEEDA Act, 2006. The Secretary School Education also did not attach any list of witnesses which was to be communicated to the inquiry officer alongwith his order dated 18:07.2009.
12. On receipt of the order of the Secretary School Education dated 18.07.2009, Mr. Khalid Latif Qureshi Sr. HM GHS Allama Iqbal Town Lahore carried out the inquiry proceedings, and recorded statements of the prosecution witnesses without oath mostly in the shape of question answers. At no point of time, the inquiry officer invited the appellants to get cross-examination upon the prosecution witnesses. The procedure adopted by the inquiry officer was not proper rather it was alien to luminous provisions of Sections 10 and 11 of the PEEDA Act, 2006. After conducting defective inquiry proceedings, the inquiry officer submitted his inquiry report to the competent authority i.e Secretary School Education, who on receiving the inquiry report issued show-cause notice-cum- personal hearing dated 19 February 2011 u/S. 13(4) of the PEEDA Act, 2006 and ultimately vide his order dated 15 March 2011 imposed the following penalties upon the appellants and one Liaqat Ali:- Sr.
No.Name of Officer/Official Penalty imposed/orders passed 1 Mr. Munir Hussain Ex-Deputy District Education Officer (M-EE), Tehsil Ferozewala, SheikhupuraMajor penalty of Compulsory retirement from service under Now Sr. HM, GHS, Kala Shah Kakou, Sheikhupura Section 4(b)(iv) of the PEEDA Act, 2006.
2 Mr. Muhammad Arif Ex-Deputy District Education Officer (M-EE) Tehsil Sharaqpur, District, Sheikhupura Now Sr. HM, GHS, Ghazi Minara, Sheikhupura.Minor Penalty of withholding of promotion for two years under Section 4(a)(v) of the PEEDA Act, 2006.
3 Mr. Muhammad Shafiq Ex-Assistant Education Officer (M-EE) Factory Area, Tehsil Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura Now SST, GHS, Qila Miseeta Mandi, Muridke, Sheikhupura.Minor Penalty of Withholding of two increments for 5 years, under Section 4(a)(ii) of the PEEDA Act, 2006.
4 Mr. Liaqat Ali, Ex-Assistant Education Officer (M- EE) Factory Area tehsil Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura Now SST Govt. Elementary School, Kot Abdul Malik SheikhupuraMinor Penalty of Censure under Section 4(a)(i) of the PEEDA Act, 2006.
(Not challenged)
13. Section 13 sub-section (1) of the PEEDA Act, 2006 says that:- "On receipt of report form the inquiry officer or inquiry committee, as the case may be the competent authority shall examine the report and the relevant case material and determine whether the inquiry has been conducted in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
14. So far as the examining of the record, relevant case material and determination whether the inquiry was conducted in accordance with the provisions of this act is concerned, show-cause notice dated 19.02.2011 is completely silent about the determination of conducting the inquiry proceedings in accordance with the provisions of this Act. As the inquiry officer conducted the inquiry proceedings in a defective manner by ignoring the principle of natural justice, hence the competent authority did not determine about conducting the inquiry according to the provisions of PEEDA Act, 2006 and after receiving the reply to the show-cause notice, the Secretary School Education being competent authority imposed major penalty of compulsory retirement from service by invoking the provisions of Section 4(b)(iv) of the PEEDA Act, 2006 against Mr. Munir Hussain, Minor Penalty of Withholding of two increments for 5 years, under Section 4(a)(ii) of the PEEDA Act, 2006 against Mr. Muhammad Shafique and Minor Penalty of withholding of promotion for two years under Section 4(a)(v) of the PEEDA Act, 2006 against Mr. Muhammad Arif. Being aggrieved, departmental appeals were filed but the same were rejected by Chief Secretary vide his order dated 17 June 2011. The Chief Secretary while disposing off departmental appeals failed to keep in his mind that the inquiry officer conducted the proceedings in a perfunctory manner and violated the principle of natural justice, however rectified the punishment awarded to Muhammad Shafique, as withholding of annual increments for a period of five years.
15. The inquiry proceedings conducted by Mr. Khalid Latin Qureshi Sr. HM GHS Allama Iqbal Town Lahore against the appellants available on the record was not in proper form and opportunity of cross-examination was not provided to the appellants, therefore, such report was not sacrosanct.
Reliance is placed on 1993 SCMR 1440 titled "Jan Muhammad vs. General Manger etc."
16. In the present case, at no point of time during the inquiry proceedings, the inquiry officer invited the appellants to conduct cross-examination. Record of the inquiry proceedings reflects either the inquiry officer or the departmental representative put cross questions to few witnesses, hence the mechanism adopted by the inquiry officer was not lawful as enshrined in PEEDA Act, 2006. Needless to add that; inquiry proceedings are of judicial in nature and the same should be conducted perfectly in accordance with the dictates of law, following the principle of natural justice and not whimsically, otherwise benefit would go to accused official. Reliance is placed on 2005 PLC (C.S)
256 titled "Dr. Asif Jan vs. Secretary to the Government of Sindh Health Department etc."
17. As the department has failed to get conducted proper regular inquiry against the present appellants before imposing punishments impugned, hence impugned punishments are not justified. The inquiry officer failed to adopt proper procedure as laid down in judgment reported in PLJ 2011 Tr.C. (services) 131 titled as Javaid Ourashi vs. Chief Post Master Hyderabad, etc and this amounts to violation of the principle of natural justice, therefore, taking legal light from the case law mentioned above and without touching the merits, these appeals are allowed, impugned orders/punishments are set aside and Mr. Munir Hussain is reinstated in service with immediate effect. However keeping in view the seriousness of the matter, these cases are remanded to the competent authority for de novo proceedings and disposal of the same strictly in accordance with law. Intervening period of Mr. Munir Hussain shall also be decided by the competent authority after the outcome of the de novo proceedings. Legal consequences shall follow.