Shujaat Ali Khan, J. Through this single judgment, I intend to decide W.P. No.1550/2017 (this petition) as well as W.P. Nos.30810/2017, 101536/2017, 32676/2017 & 39469/2016 (connected petitions) having commonality of law and facts inasmuch the petitioners, who were performing duties against different posts in the University of the Punjab, Lahore (the University) were proceeded against inter-alia on the allegations of forgeries/malpractices in the result of BA/B.Sc. Annual Examination 2012 and upon conclusion of proceedings major penalty of dismissal/removal from service was imposed against them vide order , dated 29.10.2013, passed by the competent authority , which, on the recommendations of the Appellate Committee, was converted into that of compulsory retirement from service vide order , dated 23.11.2016. Aggrieved of imposition of major penalties, the petitioners have filed these petitions.
2. The submissions made by Mr. Usman G. Rashid Advocate, representing the petitioners in this petition, can be summed up in the words that according to the first proviso to section 2(f) of Punjab Employees Efficiency , Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 (PEEDA Act, 2006) in matters where more than one employees/accused are to be proceeded against jointly , the competent authority in relation to the senior most employee in rank shall be the competent authority in respect of all the accused but while constituting inquiry committee, in case of his client, the said provision was totally ignored; that according to PEEDA Act, 2006 the competent authority is the appointing authority but order regarding initiation of proceedings against the petitioners havin g been passed by incompetent authority was not tenable; that according to section 10 of PEEDA Act, 2006 the competent authority was bound to appoint inquiry officer/committee but when no such order was passed in line with the said provision, the recommendations made by the inquiry committee against the petitioners could not be used against them; that mala-fide on the part of the respondents is evident from the fact that suspension of the petitioners was unnecessarily stretched to three years; that as per section 5(2) of PEEDA Act, 2006 order of inquiry or show cause is to be signed by the competent authority but when the orders regarding initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioners were not signed by the competent authority the subsequent structure raised on the basis thereof has no legal sanctity; that undue haste on the part of the respondents is evident from the fact that charges against each of the petitioners were not specified, thus, it offends against clear cut provisions of PEEDA Act, 2006; that if acts of the petitioners were so heinous as to why criminal proceedings were not conducted against them; that since the inquiry report was not submitted within the prescribed period of limitation, the provisions of section 10 of PEEDA Act, 2006 were violated as Inquiry Committee took ten long months to conclude the inquiry; that Prof. Dr. Muhammad Zikriya Zakar , who participated in one meeting only could not sign the inquiry report; that initial charges were confined to result of B.A./B.Sc. but later on result of LL.B was also included by the inquiry committee despite the fact that it had no jurisdiction to travel beyond the scope assigned to it by the competent authority; that according to the inquiry report all 11 accused were called on one and the same day which was not possible in ordinary course, hence, undue haste on the part of the inquiry committee is floating on the scene; that since the inquiry report was not provided to the petitioners, they were unable to put their proper defence; that mala-fide on the part of the members of the inquiry committee is evinced from the fact that the questions asked during inquiry have not been incorporated in the inquiry report; that discriminatory attitude on the part of the inquiry committee is evident from the fact that it treated the accused differently; that Vice Chancellor of the University , being the competent authority , could not sign the inquiry report; that Show Cause/Personal Hearing Notices having not been issued in line with the provisions of section 13(4) of PEEDA Act, 2006 could not sustain; that the Show Cause Notices, having issued by the Registrar of the University , were coram-non judice and that the competent authority could not alter the punishment recommended by the inquiry committee, except after issuing due notice(s).
3. Malik Muhammad Awais Khalid, Advocate, representing the University , submits that since the petitioners are equipped with alternate remedy of revision in the light of section 17 of PEEDA Act, 2006, these petitions are not maintainable; that since complete procedure was adopted prior to imposing pena lties against the petitioners they did not deserve for any leniency mere on account of procedural deficiency , if any, and that bona fide of the departmental authorities is vividly clear from the fact that though inquiry committee recommended their removal/dismissal from service but the Appellate Committee while showing latitude converted their punishments to that of compulsory retirement. Relies on Province of Punjab through Special Secretary , Specialized Healthcare and Medical Education Department, Lahore and others ( 2021 SCMR 1419 ).
4. While exercising his right of rebuttal, Mr. Usman G. Rashid Advocate, representing the petitioners in this petition, submits that Fact Finding Report, prepare d on 14.09.2012, could not be used against the petitioners for initiation of inquiry; that since the petitioners were never confronted with Fact Finding Report, the same could not be used against them; that though Fact Finding Inquiry was initiated against Muhammad Rafiq Pasha but he was given clean chit; that discriminatory attitude on the part of the inquiry committee is evide nt from the fact that though role of Ali Raza, one of the co-accused, was similar to that of the petitioners but the inquiry committee recommended forfeiture of two years' of his past service and that since the entire proceedings were conducted in violation of clear cut provisions of the PEEDA Act, 2006, same cannot be allowed to remain in field even for a moment.
5. Rana Muhammad Khalil, Advocate for the petitioners in WP No.101536/2017 & 32676/2017, in addition to adopting the arguments advanced by Mr. Usman G. Rashid Advocate, submits that since fictitious roll numbers are manually allotted prior to entering data in computer , computer personnel could not be held responsible for any omission or commission on the part of the Vigilance Staff, present in Examination Centre, at the relevant time; that most relevant persons to thrash the allegations levelled against the petitioners were those of Secrecy Branch but none of them having been joined with the proceedings, the conclusion arrived at by the inquiry committee could not be considered as sacrosanct and that strangely enough, in the case of petitioner in W.P. No.32676/2017, the Vice Chancellor of the University has assumed the role of competent as well as that of the appellate authority .
6. Mr. Naveed Younas, petitioner in person in WP No.39469/2016, in addition to adopting the arguments advanced by Mr. Usman G. Rashid Advocate, submits that his name was not included in the list of accused persons who were initially proceeded rather he was involved in departmental proceedings on the basis of statements of M/s Nadeem and Ali Raza.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the documents, annexed with these petitions, as well as the case-law cited at the bar .
8. Firstly , taking up the objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that inquiry proceedings were initiated against the petitioners by incompetent authority , I am of the view that admittedly , Khurshid Ahmad and Muhammad Rafiq Pasha, Admn. Officers, were the senior most amongst the accused persons, thus, the competent authority in relation to all the petitioners was to be considered the Vice Chancellor of the University . Seemingly , learned counsel for the petitioners has urged so on the ground that letter regarding constitution of inquiry committee, dated 17.09.2012, was issued by the Registrar of the University but while asserting so learned counsel did not consider that in the body of the said letter it has been mentioned in unequivocal words that the same was issued on behalf of Vice Chancellor of the University . In this backdrop, the objectio n raised by learned counsel for the petitioners, being contrary to the record, is hereby spurned.
9. A perusal of Office Order bearing No.25988-96/Est.II, dated 17.09.2012, shows that the same relates to suspension of the petitioners whereas statement of allegations was to be issued by the inquiry committee or the person authorized by it, thus, it had nothing to do with the accusation containe d in Office Order whereby the petitioners were placed under suspension. It is relevant to note over here that with a view to confront each petitioner , with his corresponding statement of allegation, separate charge sheets were issued despite the fact that inquiry committee could do so even through a consolidated charge sheet. In this scenario, no ill-will or mala fide can be attributed to the inquiry committee.
10. Now coming to the plea of the petitioners that since Prof. Dr. Muhammad Zikriya Zakar participated in only one meeting of the inquiry committee he could not sign the inquiry report, I am of the humble opinion that since he was not only member of the inquiry committee but also he occasionally participated in its proceedings, thus, he could not be debarred to sign the same.
11. Astonishingly enough, the case of the petitioners is that they were maliciously involved in inquiry proceedings but a cursory glance over the replies submitted by them to the charge sheets speak otherwise. To substantiate said fact a reference can be made to paragrap h No.1(iii) of the reply submitted by Ahsa n Liaqat, one of the petitioners, which for facility of reference is reproduced herein below: - Further reference in this regard can be made to paragraph No.1(v) of the reply submitted by Imran Munir, one of the petitioners, which for facility of reference is reproduced herein below: - A cursory glance over above quoted portions from the replies, submitted by some of the accused persons, shows that instead of denying the allegations levelled against them they confessed their guilt. Though they took the plea that they did so under duress and coercio n but no proof in that regard was referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners despite the fact that he addressed the Court at certain length. The Apex Court of the country in the case of Akbar Khan v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2002 SCMR 684) while dealing the repercussions of admission on the part of a government servant, during inquiry proceedings, has inter alia held as under:- "10. We have considered the arguments addressed at the bar and are not inclined to the view that anybody , other than the appellant himself, is to blame for the predicament in which he finds himse lf today . A reference to para. 11 of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, already reproduced in para. 4 above, clearly shows that he did not avail of the opportunities provided to him by the Enquiry Officer to cross-examine the witnesses and that he voluntarily admitted his guilt. His admission before the Deputy Registrar in the presence of witnesses and the evidence in connection with second charge before the Enquiry Officer were rightly taken as going a long way in proving his guilt. Similar is the position about the cassette containing the talk between complainant Ali Zaman and appellant Akbar Khan about receipt of Rs.4,000 by the latter from the former as illegal gratification in connection with appeal No.202(R) of 1992. Mr. Sheikh Riazul Haque did not even so much as contend that the judgment in appeal falls short of any measure whatsoever , includ ing in relation to the observations by the Tribunal that in the presence of the admission of his guilt by the appellant, there was no need for holding any formal enquiry against him in view of this Court's judgments reported in PLD 1985 SC 134, 1987 SCMR 829, 1990 SCMR 447, 1993 SCMR 603, 1993 SCMR 956 and 1991 SCMR 140 ." (emphasis provided)
The above view was further reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shamshad Ali v. Senior Post Master (Dely), Islamabad G.P.O., Islamabad and 2 others (2003 SCMR 367) by inter alia observing as follows:- "6. In view of the overwhelming evidence against the appellant and his own admission, the contention of learned counsel that regular inquiry , as provided under rule 5 of the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973, was not conducted, in any case, is not tenable........."
If the conduct of the petitioners, who admitted their guilt while filing their replies, is considered in the light of afore- referred decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan there leaves no ambiguity that their involvement in malfeasance stood established.
12. As far as plea of learned counsel for the petitioners that Show Cause/Personal Hearing Notices were issued by the incompetent authority , is concerned, suffice it to note that admittedly the competent authority in relation to Khurshid Ahmad and Muhammad Rafiq Pasha, Admn. Officers, was the Vice Chancellor of the University whereas rest of the accused were under the control of the Registrar of the University , thus, the impugned Show Cause Notices, having been issued by the Registrar of the University , cannot be considered coram non judice .
13. While arguing the matter , learned counsel for the petitioners has put much emphasis on the fact that though the Fact Finding Inquiry was initiated against Muhammad Rafiq Pasha, Admin Officer, Accounts Branch, but at the end he was given clean chit. A cursory glance over the inquiry report shows that Muhammad Rafiq Pasha, Admin Officer was given cheat chit for the reason that he was not involved in procedure of result compilation rather he was saddled with the responsibility of attestation of Admission Forms only. Moreover , the documents submitted by the respondents alongwith their report and parawise comments speak volumes about maladministration on the part of different officials/of ficers in the University which otherwise is considered Centre of Excellence. If the employees of the University are allowed to play havoc with the future of the students, by tinkering with the University record, perhaps, the trust posed by the public-at-large in the University would evaporate. In this background, any action by the administration of an educational institute against its employees involved in any kind of maladministration should be supported at all levels as it is the only recourse to protect our educ ational institutions from such maladministration.
14. While agitating discrimination on the part of the inquiry committee, learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the punishment recommended for Ali Raza, Junior Key Punch Operator . Perhaps, learned counsel for the petitioners raised such plea in oblivion of the fact that Hearing Officer, while formulating his opinion, concluded that penalty recommended for other accused be also imposed against him. To fortify the same, a reference can be made to the following portion from the note of the Hearing Of ficer.
"WHEREAS, from the confessional statement of the accused, Mr.Ali Raza, Junior KPO, Examinations Department, it has clearly been established that he remained an associate of the other accused persons in committing forgeries in the BA/B.Sc. Examination, 2012. So, being associate of the said team/mafia, he is not entitled to any discriminatory treatment and should be awarded the same penalty as was proposed by the Inquiry Committee for the others in the like situation."
Further , while agreeing with the opinion of the Personal Hearing Officer, the Registrar of the University , being the competent authority , imposed major penalty of removal from service against said Ali Raza. A reference in this regard can be made to Office Order , bearing No.24453-65/Est.II, dated 29.10.2013, which for ready reference is imaged below: - UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB OFFICE ORDER The Register , being competent authority , after issuance of Show Cause Notices and affording on opportunity of personal hearing to the following accused persons has ordered that the major penalty of 'Removal from Service' be imposed upon them with immediate ef fect, under Section 13(5) of the PEEDA Acr, 2006.
Sr.
No.Name of the Accused Department 1 Mr. Muhammad Razzaq Senior KPO Examinations (Under Suspension)
2 Mr. Imran Munir , Senior KPO Examinations (Under Suspension)
3 Mr. Muhammad Nadeem Senior KPO Examinations (Under Suspension)
4 Mr. Ali Raza Junior KPO Examinations (Under Suspension)
5 Mr. Muhammad Arshad Junior KPO Examinations (Under Suspension)
6 Mr. Ahsan Liaqat Junior KPO Examinations (Under Suspension)
7 Mr. Muhammad Azeem Saleem Junior KPOExaminations (Under Suspension)
8 Mr. Naveed Younas Senior KPO Examinations (Under Suspension)
9 Mr. Arshad Noor Junior KPO Botany (Under Suspension)
No. 34453-65 /Est.II Dated 29/10/2013 Sd/- (MUHAMMAD AMIN KHAN)
DEPUTY REGISTRAR (ADMIN.II) FOR REGISTRAR
15. Now taking up the case of Mr. Naveed Younas, petitioner in WP No.39469/2016, I have noted that though he was not included amongst the employees who were initially proceeded against, however , when allegation of his involvement was levelled by M/s Nadeem and Ali Raza, he was also charge sheeted and upon establishment of his involvement in the scam, he was penalized alongwith others. In the given circumstances no leniency can be shown to Mr. Naveed Younas, petitioner , merel y on the ground that initially his name was not included in the list of employees against whom departmental proceedings were initiated.
16. It is very strange to note that during arguments learned counsel for the petitioners put much emphasis on the fact that if acts of the petitioners were so heinous as to why criminal case was not got registered against them. In this regard, I am of the view that initiation of criminal proceedings against any delinquent official/of ficer, in addition to departmental action, falls within the domain of the competent authority . Further even if said proceedings are conducted simultaneously , their outcome has no overlapping affect upon each other . In this backdrop, non-initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners per-se does not come to their rescue.
17. The dismal state of affairs in the most sensitive wings of the University , which otherwise commands good reputation at national and international level, portrayed in the documents attache d with the report and parawise comments submitted in these petitions, is alarming. If the affairs of the leading University of the country are allowed to be run in such a manner , perhaps, the future of our nation would be quite bleak. If merit and only merit is not set as hallmark in such institutions, there would be no difference between us and the citizens of a banana republic as high standards of education pave way for uplifting of a nation/country and likewise deterioration in that sphere of life would adversely affect all and sundry of a nation/country . The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education v. Hafiz Ahmad Sufyan (PLD 2004 SC 25), while sensitizing about consequences of any leniency to the persons involved in use of unfair means, inter alia concluded as under:- "15. The impugned punishment awarded to the respondent had been annulled by the High Court not on account of a finding that he was not guilty of the conduct alleged against him but on the ground of the legal lacunae which have not been found tenable by us. The guilt of the respondent in using unfair means to pass the Chemistry paper in question, as found by the petitioner -Board, stood affirmed even by the learned High Court. We have given a serious thought to the above-noticed submission of the learned counsel but find that showing any leniency to a student found guilty of using unfair means to pass an examination would only encourage unscrupulous students to adopt such-like means for getting through the examinations. We may add that it is the leniency shown to such-like young men in the past which has eroded and destroyed the sanctity and the image of our system of examination.
Therefore, we feel compelled not to show any sympathy to the respondent on account of his above-noticed conduct."
If the conduct of the petitioners is adjudged on the touchstone of the afore-quoted judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court there leaves no ambiguity that being facilitators of the persons, who were involved in use of unfair means, cheating and impersonation, they cannot be shown any leniency .
18. It is well entrenched by now that this Court cannot substitute the findings of the competent/appellant authority until and unless the same are found to be perverse or arbitrary , which, in my view is missing in the cases in hand, hence, no leniency can be shown to the petitioners.
19. One of the points urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the inquiry committee did not strictly adhere to the procedure. In this regard, I of the humble view that firstly no material irregularity on the part of the inquiry committee has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners and secondly an inquiry officer/committee is not bound to follow the strict principles applicable in other proceedings rather the statements recorded in the shape of questions and answers are sufficient. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the case reported as Najam-Uz-Zaman and others v. Engineer-in-Chief, G.H.Q., Rawalpindi and 2 others (2009 PLC
(CS) 127). In this background, no premium can be given to the petitioners on account of alleged procedural deficiency .
20. For what has been noted above, I see no force in these petitions which are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.