Briefly, appellant while working as PST, Govt. Girls High School, Gharibabad, Tehsil & District Rawalpindi was proceeded against under PEEDA Act, 2006 on the charge of "Misconduct and Bogus appointment/Inter District Transfer".
The competent authority/Deputy DEO (W-EE), Rawalpindi appointed Mst. Rohi Yasmin, Headmistress, Govt. Girls High School, Khayaban-e-Sir Syed, Sector-I, Rawalpindi as inquiry officer who conducted inquiry, submitted report vide letter dated 24.8.2013 held that charges leveled were proved, recommended for imposition of major penalty of Removal from Service.
The competent authority vide show-cause-cum-personal hearing notice dated 3.9.2013 granted opportunity of personal hearing but appellant did not avail the opportunity.
The competent authority/Deputy DEO (W-EE), Rawalpindi, thereafter agreeing with the recommendations of the inquiry officer imposed major penalty of Removal from Service vide impugned order dated 28.9.2013.
Appellant filed departmental appeal before District Education Officer (W-EE), Rawalpindi which was rejected vide order dated 20.9.2014. Hence this service appeal.
2. Arguments heard, record perused.
3. Appellant was appointed as PTC Teacher on 27.12.1989 by Assistant Education Officer (Women), Pakpattan, while performing duty at Govt. Girls Primary School, Kalkohance, District Pakpattan she got herself transferred to District Rawalpindi vide letter dated 4.12.1990 and was adjusted at Govt.
Girls High School, Gharibabad, Rawalpindi vide letter dated 14.2.1991.
On general directions of School Education Department, Government of the Punjab for verification of record of its employees, the department issued instructions with regard thereto, accordingly, record of the appellant was sent for verification by Headmistress, GGHS, Gharibabad to EDO (Education), Pakpattan vide letter dated 17.9.2012.
EDO (Education), Pakpattan in reply through letter dated 17.1.2013 informed that Service Book and first appointment of the appellant was bogus as well as her Inter District Transfer letter was also found bogus.
Consequently, disciplinary proceedings were initiated, the inquiry officer submitted report and concluded as follows:-- "As per statement and documents given by the accused lady teacher, it has observed that no appointment was made by any competent authority in District Pakpattan, her appointment/posting in District Rawalpindi is fake and bogus as per record proved by the Executive District Officer (Edu), Pakpattan vide Letter No, 282/Admn dated 17/1/2013 and she joined this Department on fictitious documents in Rawalpindi. The charges leveled against have been proved".
4. The pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan through various judgments regarding bogus appointment are as under:-- 2012 SCM R 673 Muhammad Ali and 11 others VS. Province of KPK through Secretary, Elementary and Secondary Education, Peshawar and others "Having noted the relevant facts divulged from the case .record, as above, which have not been disputed by the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners, we do not find any substance in the arguments of learned Advocate Supreme Court regarding denial of opportunity of hearing to the petitioners for the simple reason that one who seeks equity must do equity and approach the Court with clean hands, as opposed to protection of some ill-gotten gains. The petitioners, who admittedly got their appointments from the backdoor without advertisement of vacancies, inviting of applications and completion of codal formalities, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, cannot challenge the principles of good governance adopted at the highest level, mandating each and every appointment in the Government services to be made on merits as per relevant rules and completion of codal formalities or lawfully agitate any grievance on the pretext of lack of due opportunity of hearing, The original order of termination of petitioner's service dated 4-9-2009 is self-explanatory and cannot be termed as illegal on any hyper-technical ground, as also rightly concluded by the Tribunal in its impugned judgment, therefore, calling for no interference in exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
Besides, there is no question of law of public importance involved in these petitions, which is "sine qua non" for invoking such jurisdiction". 2009 SCM R 1492 Anwar Ali and another Vs. Chief Executive HESCO (WAPDA)
"We believe that in view of the admitted facts particularly in the case of Muhammad Ishaq, relevant para is reproduced hereinabove, Inquiry Report and other documents brought in the case of Anwar Ali, there is no need of entering into factual controversy, except to examine that under the circumstances, whether Tribunal had rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, allowing benefit of compulsory retirement to them instead of maintaining the penalty of dismissal from service. Undoubtedly, Tribunal enjoys such jurisdiction but it is to be exercised judiciously. In the given circumstances of the case, when it has been established on the record that both of them had committed fraud and are guilty of gross misconduct, there was no occasion to show leniency in their favour. Whatever the arguments advanced by Mr. Haider Hussain, Learned Advocate Supreme Court that Anwar Ali was not responsible for the placing on record bogus certificate for the purpose of selection/appointment as Divisional Accountant but the fact remains that they were the beneficiaries and the Inquiry Officer after having taken pain on the basis of available record has opined against them. Such Inquiry Report has not only been accepted by the Competent Authority but also by the Appellate Authority of the same department as well as, the Tribunal. Therefore, arguments raised by the learned counsel for the respondents are not acceptable. This Court in the case of Postmaster General, AJK v. Muhammad Zorab 1996 SCM R 280 has held that Supreme Court, while hearing appeal arising from decision of Service Tribunal would only interfere if order passed by Tribunal lacked application of mind or suffered from arbitrariness.
Following this principle we have no option to hold that in the instant case Service Tribunal had not adhered to this principle correctly. Had the Service Tribunal gone through the documents placed before the Inquiry Officer, there was no occasion to show any leniency in their favour. Contrary to it, the Tribunal may have recommended the department for further criminal action against such person so that it may serve deterrence for a likeminded person in future. But instead of doing so, respondents who have been found guilty for gross misconduct and fraud, had been benefited by converting the penalty of dismissal from service into compulsory retirement only for the reason that they had served the department for about 27 years etc. Therefore, the reasons prevailed upon the Service Tribunal are not acceptable in any context". 2007 SCM R 1835 Executive District Officer (Education), Rawalpindi Vs. Muhammad Younas "It is a settled law that when the basic order is without lawful authority then the superstructure shall have to fall on the ground automatically as law laid down by this Court in Yousaf Ali's case PLD 1958 SC 104. It is also a settled law that where the order of appointment was secured by fraud and misrepresentation then principle of locus poenitentiae is not attracted as law laid down by this Court in Jalal-ud-Din's case PLD 1992 SC 207. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent has not challenged the authenticity ofhis dismissal from. Pak Army on 1-12-1982 wherein he was also declared unfit for civil service and awarded unsatisfactory character. This fact alone is sufficient that respondent secured appointment as P.T.C. Teacher on 5-10-1985 by fraud and misrepresentation. It is also a settled law that tentative appointment is always subject to verification of character and otecedents. The petitioners were still within their right after securing verification qua the dismissal of respondent from Pak Army on 1-12-1982 that the aforesaid observation to termination the services of the respondent which is in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in Raja Muhammad Afzal Khan's case PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 258. The learned Service Tribunal has decided the case in violation of the dictum laid down by this Court and without adverting to the fact as mentioned above that respondent secured the appointment from petitioners by fraud and misrepresentation".
5. Appellant was Removed from Service after a detailed scrutiny of record. The authenticity of the Appointment Letter and Inter District Transfer, Letter was not corroborated by producing any tangible material with regard thereto, thus presumption would be that appellant at the time of entrance manoeuvred a bogus appointment letter in connivance with dishonest elements and subsequently being in the habit of producing such letters appellant again managed her Inter District Transfer through a Bogus Transfer Letter.
6. Keeping in view the ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, when initial appointment is void ab-inito then by efflux of time such unlawful order will not become lawful.
7. In view above, I find no substance in this appeal, dismissed accordingly.