Since common question of law and facts are involved in the above cited four appeals, therefore, these are being decided through this single consolidated judgment.
2. Necessary facts leading to the filing of instant four appeals are that appellants were recruited under Recruitment Policy of 1994. Total number of vacancies available with the respondents were 367 whereas 457 applications were received and 366 appointments were made by District Education Officer (EE-M), Khanewal and in pursuance of meeting of DRC appointments orders were issued to the eligible candidates. All the four appellants were declared as successful candidates and were recrui ted as GET/GPT with initial pay scale 14 vide order dated 14.06.1995 and after joining started performing their duties regularly . They all had been performing their duties from 14.06.1995 to 07.04.2017 for the period of around 22 years. Appellants namely Muhammad Amin Abid, Muhammad Younas had initial academic qualification B.A/B.Ed and Muhammad Mudassar had initial acad emic qualification B.Sc/B.Ed at the time of recruitment and enhanced their academic qualification to obtain the degree of master in various subjects whereas appellant namely Muhammad Tayyab Mahmood had initial academic qualification B.Sc/B.Ed.
Subsequently when DPC meeting was convenient for the regularization of G.P.Ts/G.E.T s in District Khanewal and upon the conclusion of proceedings, few teachers were regularized but cases of appellants and some others were deferred and not regularized. In the meanwhile, District Education Officer (EE-M), Khanewal constituted an inquiry committee for conducting regular inquiry against 12 EET (Male) (including present four appellants) through Letter No. 2372/GPT dated 17.07.2007 and inquiry committee recommended their cases be put before the DPC for consideration/regularization w.e.f the date of appointments. However , these recommendations were not acted upon and another inquiry was conducted after the passing of ten years from earlier inquiry and inquiry report was finalized through enquiry report No. 317 dated 25.03.2017 and the said inquiry committee found that 12 teachers (including present four appellants) were meritless being 3rd division and their names were not included in DRC and as per them both these shortcomings were against the policy , therefore, it was recommended that all 12 English Teachers (including present four appellants) be removed from service with immed iate effect. In pursuance of the recommendations of inquiry committee, show cause notices were issued to the appellants u/S. 13(4) of PEEDA Act, 2006 and competent authority/District Education Officer (EE-M), Khanewal imposed the major penalty of removal from service vide order dated 07.04.2017. Departmental appeals filed by the appellants were also dismissed by the appellate authority . Hence these appeals.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. There is no denial to the fact that upon the conclusion of recruitment proceeding s all four appellants were issued appointment letters duly signed by the competent authority . It has never been the case of respondents that appointment letters issued in the name of appellants were either fake or bogus. Appointment letters issued in the name of appellants thus in no way be counted as fake and bogus documents. It may further be seen that the orders of appointments of appellants were given effect and were got duly implemented. Nothing is available on the record to even remotely suggest that appellants had procured their appointment letters through any dubious means. None of the appellants have been attributed any wrong on their part. It has not the case of respondents that appellants were in fact holding degree of B.A 3rd division and they wrongly mentioned their qualification in their applications as B.A 2nd division. All the appellants applied for appointment by placing their educational documents alongwith applications. It was the responsibility of the concerned officer of the department to have seen and scrutinized the documents carefully and then to have proceeded in the matter . All the procedural formalities were to be carried out by the competent authority before issuance of appointment letters to the appellants. It may further be observed that once a person has been appointed through a genuine appointment letter then such order cannot be withdrawn or rescinded by the department. It is also by now settled principle of law that once a person has been appointed after fulfilling all formalities by the competent authority and appointment letter has also been issued a vested right is created in favour of that person and such person cannot be removed from service merely on the sweet will and whims of the appointing authority . It may further be seen that appellants namely Muhammad Amin Abid, Muhammad Younas and Muhammad Mudassar have also enhanced their academ ic qualification of master degree whereas appellant namely Muhammad Tayyab Mahmood has already an additional qualification of B.Ed in his credit. The fact that appellants were having 3rd division degree in B.A exam would practical be washed away by higher additional qualification possessed by the appellants. And it would be more reasonable and logical that in case a person possessed a higher qualification then the higher qualification ought to be taken into consideration in preference to the prescribed minimum qualification. It may further be seen that inquiry committee constituted in pursuance of Letter No. 2372/GPT dated 17.7.2007 in its report observed as under: "It is an admitted truth that the appointment/adjustment orders in respect of all the 12 EETs were issued from the office concerned. As these orders were issued under the proper signature of the concerned authority i.e. the then DEO(M-EE), Khanewal which cannot be declared as suspicious or bogus one because all these such orders were implemented by the respective field officers i.e. Headmistress concerned, AEO concerned and Dy. DEO concerned as well as entertained by the District Accounts Officer, Khanewal- without any objection. The fact does not lie upon the candidates as the responsibility of fulfilling/completion of codal formalities rests with the officer concerned. The appointment authority is itself responsible for taking approval from the Departmental Recruitment Committee check the legality and other measures of appointment orders prior to its. issuance. The judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court provides a support and gives protection to the accused in this respect.
No on can suffer on account of act of the authority , who had based on an order and had taken some action which action was illegal or without lawful authority of a person which were wrong or account of such action of the authority was entitled to be restored to the same position as right of the maximum possible, extent which he would be occupied but for the wrongful act of the authority . PLD-1994 LHR-3 .
The appointment made and issuance of appointment letters is the sole responsibility of the authority concerned in accordance with the legal procedure nor it rests upon the candidate who has only to submit his application for his appointment. The candidates have no concern what so ever, but only to get their appointment letters signed by the authority from concerned of fice."
Admittedly , it was the sole responsibility of appointing authority to have fulfilled all codal formalities and recruitment proceedings before issuing of appointment letters and the responsibility of any shortcoming in the said process would only lie upon the authority and appellants cannot be held responsible particularly where no concealment of any fact regarding their educational qualification was done by the appellants while applying for the appointment of the post of English Teacher .
5. Keeping in view of principle of Locus Poenitentiae once right was accrued to a civil servant by issuing him appointment letter after complying with all the codal formalities the same cannot be taken away on the basis of procedural lapse committed by department itself. Reliance in this regard may safely be placed on case titled Mst.
Basharat Jehan vs. Director General, Federal Government Education, FGEI (C/Q) Rawalpindi (2015 SCMR 1418 ) where following dicta was laid down; "Once a right is accrued to the appellant by appointment letters issued after complying with all the codal formalities could not be taken away on mere assu mption and or supposition and or whims and fancy of any executive functionary . Such right once vests, cannot be destroyed or withdrawn as legal bar would come into play under the well doctrine of locus Poenitentiae, well recognized and entrenched in our jurisprudence (One may refer to Director , Social W elfare, N.W .F.P, Peshawar v . Sadullah Khan (1996 SCMR 1350 )."
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned orders are not sustain able, same are hereby set aside by accepting the instant four appeals and in consequence whereof all four appellants are directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential back benefits.