MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, J. --- Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner , Faisal Ejaz, impugns office order dated 03.01.2018, issued by the Pakistan Television Corporation Limit ed ("P.T.V."), whereby penalty of stoppage of annual increment for one year awarded to the petitioner vide letter dated 04.10.2007 was converted into termination of service w.e.f 02.01.2018.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 23.11.2000, the petition er was appointed as Associate Computer Graphics Designer in P.T.V.; that subsequently , the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Controller (Graphics); that the petitioner had been issued several appreciation letters; that the petitioner was alleged to have submitted bogus educational testimonials to P.T.V.; that the inquiry proceedings against the petitioner culminated in P.T.V.'s letter dated 04.10.2007, whereby the penalty of withholding the petitioner's increment for one year was imposed on him; that with the imposition of the said penalty , the matter became a past and closed transaction; and that all of a sudden, vide impugned order dated 03.01.2018, the said penalty already imposed on the petitioner was converted into a penalty of termination from service.
3. Learned counsel further submitted that at no material stage, was any de-novo inquiry conducted against the petitioner; that the petitioner was neither issued a show-cause notice nor was he afforded an opportunity of hearing before the issuance of the impugned order dated 03.01.2018; and that the, conversion of the penalty after a lapse of more than ten years is wholly unlawful and violates the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 13 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for the writ petition to be allowed and for the impugned order dated 03.01.2018 to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for P.T.V. submitted that in paragraph (d) of the writ petition, the petitioner had candidly admitted that he had submitted a fake degree to P.T.V.; that although the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner had culminated in the imposition of the penalty of withholding the petitioner's increment for one year, vide P.T.V.'s letter dated 04.10.2007, but after that there were several judgments of the Superior Courts, whereby the penalties of dismissal and removal from service imposed on employees for submitting fake degrees to their employers were upheld; and that the law laid down by the Superior Courts necessitated P.T.V. to convert the earlier penalty imposed on the petitioner into a penalty of termination from service.
5. Learned counsel for P.T.V. further submitted that other than a few employees of P.T.V. who had obtained interim relief from National Industrial Relations Commission, there are no other employee s with fake degrees working in P.T.V. Learned counsel for P.T.V. prayed for the writ petition to be dismissed. In making his submissions, learned counsel for P.T.V. placed reliance on the judgments reported as 2018 SCMR 733, 2013 SCMR 279, 2019 PLC (C.S.) 519 and unreported judgment dated 22.01.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Petition No. 4016 of 2016, titled "Syed Javed Rabat Zaidi v . Oil & Gas Development Company Limited" .
6. I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record with his able assistance.
7. The record shows that inquiry proceedings had been conducted against the petitioner for having given "false. incorrect or inaccurate information regarding qualification". The inquiry proceedings against the petitioner culminated in P.T.V.'s letter dated 04.10.2007, whereby the penalty of withholding of increment for one year i.e. 01.07.2007 to 30.06.2008 was imposed on the petitioner . Furthermore, the petitioner was warned to be careful in the future.
8. More .than ten years after the imposition of the said penalty , P.T.V., vide impugned office order dated 03.01.2018, converted the said penalty into termination from service.
9. True, there are several judgments of the Superior Courts, whereby the imposition of major penalty of dismissal/removal from service on employees for submitting fake educational testimonials to their employers have been upheld. Additionally, mere imposition of a penalty in departmental proceedings does not prevent an employer from instituting criminal proceedings against an employee for submitting fake educational testimonials in order to gain employment or any other service benefit. The case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner supports this view. Incidentally, one of the judgments reported as 2019 PLC (C.S.) 519 has been authored by me.
10. In the case at hand, had major penalty of dismissal from service been initially imposed on the petitioner, the same would have been in consonance with the above-referred case-law. However, in this case, ten years after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings with the imposition of a penalty of stoppage of annual increment, P.T.V. reopened the matter and simply converted the said penalty into termination from service. The least that P.T.V. could have done was to have followed the norms of due process before doing so. This P.T.V. did not do.
11. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The State v. Jahangir Akhtar (2018 SCMR 733), the imposition of the penalty as a result of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner would not have insulated the petitioner from being criminally prosecuted. However , this is a case where a penalty has been imposed on the petitioner twice over after a gap of a decade.
12. The learned counsel for P.T.V. could not come-up with any precedent where years after the imposition of a penalty , the same was converted into a harsher penalty without any de-novo inquiry or a show-cause notice or an opportunity of a hearing. Therefore, I am of the view that the principles of natural justice were not observed while converting the penalty imposed on the petitioner , vide impugned office order dated 03.01.2018. In the case of Pakistan Defence Officers' Housing Authority v. Jawaid Ahmed (2013 SCMR 1707 ), it has been held inter alia that "where the action of a statutory authority in a service matter is in disregard of the procedural requirements and is violative of the principles of nature justice, it can be interfered with in writ jurisdiction ."
13. With the imposition of the penalty of stoppage of an annual increment on the petitioner in the year 2007, the matter had become a past and closed transaction and could not be re-opened after a decade without just cause.
Can any Court or a Tribunal after handing down a judgment and sentencing an accused, have second thoughts and pass another judgment with a harsher sentence with an interval of a few years? I would say , certainly not.
14. In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned office order dated 03.01.2018 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.