' Briefly, facts of the case are that on receipt of a complainant from District Coordination Officer, Sialkot, department constituted an inquiry committee to re-examine the distribution of funds for Special Performance Allowance for teachers of 20% selected schools in District Sialkot. The inquiry committee submitted its detailed report with the recommendations that appellant and co- accused were responsible for irregularities in distribution of Special Performance Allowance.
2. Chief Minister/competent authority appointed Mian Abdul Haq, DPI (SE) Punjab, Lahore as inquiry officer. Inquiry Officer conducted inquiry and submitted report to the Chief Minister with recommendations that charges leveled against the appellant and co-accused officer(s) were conclusively proved but recommended minor penalty of Censure to appellant, some of the officers were also awarded minor penalties whereas majority of the co-accused were exonerated.
3. Chief Minister/competent authority in the interest of justice in exercise of powers under' Section 13(6) of the PEEDA Act, 2006 ordered a denovo inquiry and appointed Ashiq Hussain Jafari, director (P&B) as inquiry officer to conduct denovo inquiry against the appellant and co-accused officers on the following charges of inefficiency, misconduct and corruption: ' "They disbursed/participated to disburse Rs, 27,24,000/- of special performance allowance among the teachers of 20% selected schools illegally and contrary to Govt. Policy which is tantamount to inefficiency, misconduct and corruption "
4. Later on, Mat. Bushra Arshad Bhatti, Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Shandra, Lahore was appointed as new inquiry officer in place of Mr. Ashiq Hussain Jafari. Afterwards, Javed Iqbal Chaudhry, Secretary Human Rights & Minorities Affairs Department Punjab Lahore was appointed as new inquiry officer. The inquiry officer submitted report to the Chief Minister/competent authority without any conclusions and recommendations. Disagreeing with the inquiry report Chief Minister/competent authority again ordered denovo inquiry and appointed Altaf Ezid Khan, Secretary, Population Welfare Department Punjab Lahore as inquiry officer. Inquiry report was submitted by the inquiry officer and recommended minor penalty against the appellant and co- accused officers. The competent authority agreed with the recommendations of the inquiry officer imposed minor penalty of censure on the appellant vide order dated 11.04.2015. Appellant preferred review petition before the Chief Minister which was also rejected vide order dated 21.09.2015. Hence this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that charges leveled against the appellant were not proved. That inquiry officer conducted inquiry in an illegal and arbitrary manner because appellant was deprived from his right to cross-examine the witnesses. That appellant issued cross-cheques to the selectee teachers on the basis of duly approved lists by the committees and the then DEO (M-EE) Sialkot and appellant deleted four names, two being ineligible and two deceased persons from the list in good faith. That inquiry was got conducted by the departmental authorities from three different inquiry officers which shows clear mala fide on the part of the respondents. That impugned orders passed by the respondents are not sustainable in the eyes of law being passed in an arbitrary and whimsical manner without thoroughly sifting the material essential for awarding of penalty.
6. Learned District Attorney submits that appellant was given cull opportunity to explain his position but he could not put forth any plausible explanation in his favour, therefore, punishment is quite just, fair and inconsonance to the gravity of the allegations levelled. That three inquiries were conducted in which appellant was held guilty. That competent authority can order denovo inquiry under Section 13(6) of PEEDA Act 2006 and there is no restriction in this regard. Appellant was awarded a minor punishment of ensure and he deserves no leniency. '
' Arguments heard, record perused.
6-A. Perusal of record reveals that hearing officer has recommended that appellant was involved in the charge being not vigilant regarding disbursement of cheques to. Eligible persons, but inquiry officer in his findings admitted that Muhammad Saleem Bhatti A the then DEO (M-EE) Sialkot completed all process by himself, but appellant disbursed payment through cheques only. He also stated that people including worked vigilantly and withheld the cheques of four ineligible people including his predecessor and saved government exchequer from financial loss. It is evident from inquiry reports that complete process of merit list for grant of Special Performance Allowance was done by the co-accused officer i,e, Muhammad Saleem Bhatti and Muhammad Saleem Bhatti included his own name in the merit list illegally and contrary to the policy. Prima-facie perusal of inquiry reports reveal that charges leveled against the appellant has not been proved. In given circumstances, the punishment awarded to the appellant is not sustainable being based on flimsy grounds. Therefore, this appeal is allowed and impugned orders are set aside.