ASHTAR ABBAS, MEMBER-III --- 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. H.M. G.H.S. Allama lqbal 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 Appellants Allegations/Charges Mr. Munir Hussain, Deputy District Education Officer
(MALE) Ferozewala.During his posting as Deputy District Education Officer (Male ), ferozewala, the committed the following irregularities;--- He made inducations of the following five persons as PST; i. Mr. Abbas Ali son of Shabbir Hussain, residens of Mohallah Chah Badraywala, Sharaqpur Sharif Sheikhupure having CNIC NO. 35401- 6686024-3 ii. Mr. Khalid Mehmood Ismael, resident of Mohallah Araiyanwala, Sheikhupura, having CNIC NO. 35404-3641681- 5. iii. Mr. Muhammad Ilyas son of Muhammad Saqib, redident of Abid Street, Mohallah Chah Badreywala, Sharqupure, having CNIC NO. 35200- 1010001-5. iv. Mr. Shahbaz Ahmad, resident of Pharanwala, Sharqpur, sheikhupure having CNIC NO. 35401- 4736717-9 v. Mr. Shabbir Hussain son of Muhammad Sharif, resident of House No. 1, Sheikhupura, having CNIC NO. 35401-1743310- 7.
He compulsorily retired Mr. Shahbaz Ahmad son of Habib Ahmad, a fake teacher.
He prepared pension papers, service book and other benefits fraudulently released to Mr. Shahbaz Ahmad son of Habib Ahmad, a fake teacher.
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 payments certificate, service books, etc. He did not appear before the committees constituted by the Executive District Officer (Education), Sheikhupura and the District Coordination Officer, Sheikhupura to probe 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 Me.
Shabbir Hussain in drawl of Salaries on bogus documents in Tehsil Sharaqpur Sharif.
Mr. Muhammad Shafique Assitant Education Officer (M), Factory Area, FerozwalaHe remained involved and helpful directly in the process of fake inductions made by Mr. Munir Hussain Deputy District Education Officer (Male), Ferozwala, Which Tantamounts to inefficiency and misconduct.
3. The appellants submitted their independent replies to the charges/allegations by denying the same.
4. After conducting the inquiry proceedings, the inquiry officers dated submitted report bearing No. 22/KB-II, dated 11.02.2011.
5. On receiving the inquiry report the Secretary School Education vide his order dated 15.03.2011, awarded major punishment of compulsory retirement upon Munir Hussain, minor penalty of withholding of promotion for two years upon Muhammad Arif and minor penalty of withholding of two increments for 5 years upon Muhammad Shafique by invoking the provision of Section 4(b)
(iv), Section 4(a)(v) and Section 4(a)(ii) of the Punjab Employees Efficiency Discipline & Accountability Act, 2006 respectively.
6. Being aggrieved, departmental appeals were filed by the appellants, which were rejected by the Chief Secretary vide his order dated 17.06.2011. However, appellate authority corrected" the penalty/awarded- to Muhammad Shafique as withholding of annual increments for a period of five years.
7. Dissatisfied from the said orders, the appellant have assailed the same in the above-titled service appeals.
8. Learned counsels for the appellants contends that impugned orders are against law, facts and have been passed on the basis of surmises and conjectures; respondents have failed to discharge the burden to prove the charge, which rested on their shoulder; the entire action/proceedings initiated against the appellants were based on mala fide; the inquiry officer carried out the inquiry proceedings in a defective and perfunctory manner; appellants were not allowed to consult the relevant record and even not allowed to cross-examine upon the witnesses; appellants submitted various applications to get the relevant record but no heed was paid on the genuine request of the appellants by the inquiry officer and the authority; allegations leveled upon the appellants were vague, incorrect and baseless; the inquiry officer and the authority failed to note that there was no record but still on the basis of surmises and conjecture inflicted the punishments impugned, which are not sustainable; defence taken by the appellants were not appreciated; inquiry officer travelled beyond his scope, hence no reliance on the inquiry report can be placed. It is prayed that service appeals be allowed, impugned orders dated 15.03.2011 and 17.06.2011 be set, aside and appellants be awarded consequential relief with back benefits.
9. Conversely, learned 'D.A. assisted by the departmental representative vehemently opposed the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and made his reliance on the paradise 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, Ailama lqbal 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 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 OHS, Allama lqbal 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 19th February, 2011 under Section 13(4) of the PEEDA Act, 2006 and ultimately vide his order dated 15th March, 2011 imposed the following penalties upon the appellants and one Liaqat Ali:--- Sr. No. Name of Officer/OfficialPenalty imposed/orders passed
1. Mr. Munir Hussain Ex-Deputy District Education Office (M- EE), Tehsil Ferozewala, Sheikhupure Now Sr.
HM,GHS, Kala ShahMajor penalty of Compulsory retirement from service under Section PEEDA Act, Kakou, Sheikhupura 2006.
2. Mr. Muhammad Arif Ex-Deputy District Education Office (M- EE) Tehsil Sheikhupure Now Sr.
Minra, Sheikhupure.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
(MEE) Factory Area, Tehsil Ferozewala, District Sheikhupure, Nowo SST, GHS, Qila Miseeta Mandi, Muridke, Sheikhupure,Minor Penalty of Withholding of two increments for 5 year, nuder Section 4 (a)(ii) of the PEEDA Act, 2006.
4. Mr. Liaqat Ali Ex- Assistant Education Officer (M-EE)
Factory Area, Tehsil Feozewala, District Sheikhupura Now SST, Govt.
Elementary School, Kot Sheikhupura.Minor Penalty of Censure under Section 4(a)(i) of the PEEDA Act, 2006.
13. Section 13, sub-section (1) of the PEEDA Act, 2006 says that:--- "On receipt of report from 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 17th June, 2011. The Chief Secretary while disposing of 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 Latif Qureshi, Sr. H.M.G.H.S. Allama lqbal 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 v. 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 v. 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 Qureshi v. 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.
Appeal allowed.