' Succinctly stated, the competent authority/Chief Minister Punjab initiated joint disciplinary proceedings against the appellant and others by appointing Member-II, Inquiries (S&GAD) as Inquiry Officer under PEEDA Act, 2006 and the appellant was served with a statement of allegations dated 19.08.2012 on the following charges:-
(i) She made 15 fake appointments against the rules without advertising the posts, interviews and merit.
(ii) She allowed bogus appointees to join being DDEO (WEE) Minchinabad and drew their salaries being DDO.
' The inquiry officer conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted its report exonerating the appellant from the charges. The competent authority being not in agreement with the findings of inquiry officer ordered denovo inquiry by appointing Syed Mumtaz Hussain Shah, Director Public instruction (SE) Punjab, Lahore as inquiry officer who submitted its report recommending major penalty of compulsory retirement from service against the appellant. On receipt of inquiry report the competent authority issued the appellant a show-cause cum personal hearing notice 18.03.2015 and thereafter passed impugned order dated 30.10.2015 awarding the appellant major penalty of compulsory retirement from service. Aggrieved the appellant preferred a review petition to the Chief Minster Punjab, which remained unattended, hence this appeal filed on 04.02.2016.
2. According to learned counsel for the appellant the impugned order is against law and facts of the case. Explained that firstly a regular inquiry was conducted by Member-II (Inquiries) (S&GAD) who after discussing each aspect of the matter in issue exonerated the appellant from the charges. But the competent authority without assigning any reason appointed DPI (SE) Punjab Lahore to conduct denovo inquiry, where without verifying the alleged signatures of the appellant through Handwriting Expert or Forensic Laboratory, without recording statements of prosecution witnesses and in absence of deposition of any alleged fake appointee, the appellant has been held guilty in a hypothetical manner. Learned counsel contended that appellant neither put her signatures on any appointment order of the alleged Educators nor allowed them to join duty.
Pointed out that bogus/ fake Educators were removed from service but in ICA No, 89/2012 DEO (W- EE) Bahawalnagar/ appointing authority gave her consent to reinstate the Educators and reinquire the matter. Consequently, the questioned Educators were reinstated into service vide order dated 18.02.2013 passed by DEO (WEE) Bahawalnagar and they are still working in the department and in this respect inquiry has not been finalized by the inquiry committee/ authority even lapse of period of more than three years. He argued away that the 2nd inquiry report is highly insufficient for the award of impugned penalty being defective and as such he requested for the setting aside of the impugned order.
3. On the other hand the learned District Attorney negated the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant and maintained that both the impugned orders are just and liable to be upheld.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. It is evident from record that in the first inquiry the inquiry officer recommended exoneration of the appellant. But the competent authority ordered denovo inquiry without assigning any convincing reason to differ with the recommendations of the inquiry officer. On perusal of the second inquiry report it is found that no prosecution witness was brought before the inquiry officer by the department; even A statements of the alleged Fake Educators were not recorded to verify how they managed fake orders. It is not the end the inquiry officer failed to verify alleged signatures of the appellant on the appointment orders by Handwriting Expert or Forensic Laboratory and held the appellant guilty in a hypothetical manner. It is also evident from record that the alleged Educators are still working in the department and are drawing their salaries as the department failed to finalize inquiry against them and take action even after lapse of more than three years. With this backdrop, it is established that appellant has been punished keeping aside all the norms of natural justice. Visibly 6 the charge attributed so, is not established against the appellant beyond shadow of any doubt.
6. Further, the purpose of a regular inquiry is to substantiate the allegations leveled against the accused on the basis of solid evidence and beyond any shadow of doubt. But the way in which the inquiry was conducted by DPI (SE) Punjab, Lahore is found otherwise. Having gone through the inquiry report minutely, it is surfaced that no statement of any prosecution witness was recorded.
Not only this the most important witnesses i,e, the alleged fake appointees were also not recorded and the inquiry officer without relying upon any solid to evidence held the appellant guilty just to please the higher authorities which visibly reflects designed plan to punish the appellant at every cost.
7. In view of what has been discussed above, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.10.2015 is set aside. Resultantly, the appellant is reinstated into service. The intervening period during which she remained out of service is treated as leave of the kind due. 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.