ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Mst. Khalida Nasreen, Mst. Maqbool Begum and Mst.
Maqsooda Begum have made these appeals under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 wherein they have impleaded the District Education Officer, Rahimyar Khan and Deputy Directress (Women), Directorate of Education, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur as respondents.
2. As the services of the above three appellants were terminated by a single Order No. 21499/E-3, dated 24-I1-1980 by District Education Officer. Rahimyar Khan and their appeals were also rejected by the respondent No. 2 on the same date i.e. 4-8-1982 vide Orders Nos. 11026/E-I, 11028/E-1 and 11024/E-I, dated 4-8-1982, respectively, hence their appeals are being disposed of by this single judgment.
3. By virtue of these appeals the appellants have prayed that the impugned orders dated 24-11- 1980 and 4-8-1982 be set aside and the appel--lants be re-instated in service with full benefits of pay, allowance, etc. ,
4. Brief facts of these cases are as follows :-
(a) Mst. Khalida Nasreen was working as P. T. C. Teacher, Primary School, Chak No. 107/P and 101/P, Tehsil and District Rahimyar Khan. An enquiry about embezzlement/ irregularities in the Education Department was conducted by Martial Law Authorities. Mst. Khalida Nasreen was found involved in receiving pay of a lady teacher, Mst. Shamim, from November 1974 to March, 1979 by signing her pay bills unlawfully. This case was referred to the Director of Education, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur by Headquarters Deputy Martial Law Administrator, Sector 4, Bahawalpur Order No. 609/2/17/L/ML/32, dated ' 17-10-1980, wherein the departmental action against the appellant was pro-- posed. The District Education Officer, Rahimyar Khan terminat--ed the services of this appellant vide his order dated 24-11-1980 on the basis of illegal drawal of pay for Mst. Shamim by the appellant and bogus disbursement of pay as observed by the Martial Law Team and advice given- by them. The appellant made an appeal to the respondent No. 2, whichwas rejected vide her order dated 4-8-1982.Hence this appeal.
(b) Mst. Maqbool Begum was teaching in Middle School at Chak No. 46/P, in Rahimyar Khan District.
An enquiry about embezzlement/irregularities in the Education Department was con--ducted by Martial Law Authorities as mentioned above. , She was found involved as she used to come to school only twice or thrice in a month. However, she used to complete entries of attendance register on her visit to school to show that she had been coming regularly. She was also found absent from duty on 14-11-1979 when checked by an Inspection Team, headed by an Army Officer.
The Headmistress used to give protection to the appellant because her husband (Muzamal Hussain) had contacts in Education Admn. Office. This case was referred to the Director of Education, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur by Headquarters Deputy Martial Law Administrator, Sector 4, Bahawalpur vide Order No. 609/2/17/L/ML/31, dated 17-10-1980, mentioned above, wherein the departmental action against the appellant was pro--posed. The District Education, Officer, Rahimyar Khan terminated art the services of this appellant vide his order dated 24-11-1980, on the basis due to her absence from the school as observed by the Martial Law Team and advice given by them in her case. The appellant made an appeal to the respondent No. 2, which was rejected vide her order dated 4-8-1982. Hence this appeal.
(c) Mst. Maqsooda Begum was Headmistress of Girls School at Chak No. 101/P, Tehsil and District Rahimyar Khan. As mentioned in (a) & (b) above, an enquiry about embezzlement/irregularities in the Education Department was conducted by Martial Law Authorities. Mst. Maqsooda Begum was found involved in getting pay of two lady teachers unlawfully by signing receipts for them. This case was also referred to the Director of Education, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur by Headquarters Deputy Martial Law Administrator, Sector 4, Bahawalpur vide order referred to in case in (a) & (b) above ; wherein the departmental action against the appellant was proposed. The District Education Officer, Rahimyar Khan terminated the services of this appellant vide his order dated 24-11-1980, on the basit, due to her absence from duty and non-- production of certificates and advice given by the Martial Law Authorities regarding her responsibility for disbursement of pay. The appellant made an appeal to the respondent No. 2, which was rejected vide her order dated 4-8-1982. Hence this appeal.
5. We have heard the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that it was directed by the Martial Law Authorities that the departmental action be taken against the appellants vide their order dated 17-10-1980. But, no departmental action whatsoever was taken against the appellants. They were not proceeded under the Efficiency and Discip--line Rules. The services of the appellants were terminated by the District Education Officer, Rahimyar Khan vide his order dated 24-1I-1980 which was in contravention of the instructions/orders issued by the Martial Law Authorities as no departmental action was taken against the appellants. Hence the impugned order dated 24-I 1-1980 is unlawful and void ab initio. The learned counsel for the appellant further prayed as the services of the appellants have been terminated in contrary to the instructions issued by the Martial Law Authorities, hence the impugned orders be set aside and the appellants be re-instated in service with all back benefits.
6. Controverting these arguments the learned District Attorney sub--mitted that the appellants were proceeded against, as a notice was issued in the Press as published in a daily newspaper Imroze', Multan on 15-2-1980, wherein the appellants, being absent since months, were directed to produce the relevant documents regarding their qualifications, orders of appointment etc. And were also asked to present themselves within a week of this notice to District Education Officer, Rahimyar Khan, failing which they would be considered absent from duty and their services would be terminated. Thus, the appellants were proceeded under the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, and their services- were terminated lawfully and correctly.
7. Rebutting the above argument of the learned District Attorney, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this notice could not be considered in any way a show-cause notice served under the provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, as this notice was of a general nature ; and after issue of this notice in February, 1980, no further proceedings whatsoever were carried out under the provisions of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. The order of the Martial Law Headquarters dated 17-I0-1980 was received much later than this notice which was issued in February, 1980. Thus, the order of the Martial Law Authorities of October, 1980, had superseded previous proceedings or actions in the cases of the appellants and finally, the respondents were required to pro--ceed as per decision of the Martial Law Authorities taken vide their order dated 17- 10-1980, as conveyed to the Director of Education, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur, for taking departmental action against all the three appellants.
8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record of these cases with the help of the Education Department. Consultation of the record has shown that it was directed by Headquarters Deputy Martial Law Administrator, Sector 4, Bahawalpur vide Order No. 609/2/17/L/ML/32, dated 17-10-1980, addressed to the Director of Education, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur that departmental action be taken against all the three appellants for the irregularities committed by them. The Director of Education had directed on 18-10-1980, the Deputy Directress (W) to immediately initiate the action against these ladies whose irregularities were pointed out in the attached statement sent by the Martial Law Authorities.
The Deputy Directress (W) had directed the District Education Officer, Rahimyar Khan for the same by endorsing the copy of the orders of the D. M. L. A., Head--quarters, Sector 4, vide her endorsement No. 23888/E-1, dated 18-10-1980 and had also asked for the progress in this case. In turn the District Education Officer had reported the progress to 'the Director of Education, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur, vide his Memo. No. 20816/E-3, dated 29-10-1980, with a .Copy to Deputy Education Officer (W)', as follows:- "As regards departmental action against Mst. Maqbool Begum (Sr. No. 1), Mst. Naseer Begum (Sr.
No. 3), Mst. Maqsooda Begum (Sr. No. 5) and Mst. Khalida Nasreen (Sr. No. 6) their cases will be processed under E & D Rules because this is the only legal action under which we can proceed against them. But before proceeding as such, it is obligatory that certificates of these teachers are got verified from the concerned Secondary Board/Universities/Department. The Deputy Education Officer (Women) has been requested to persue the case at personal level with these originations and she has been kind enough to visit the offices at Lahore.
But the offices at other stations are yet to be visited.
The case will be proceeded further on receipt of this verification so that no legal flaw is left at the later stage if challenged by any one in the Court of law:"
On receipt of the report from Deputy District Education Officer. District Rahimyar Khan, dated 11-11- 1980, received in the office of the District Education Officer, Rahimyar Khan, on 16-11-1980, no further action or proceedings were conducted by District Education Officer, Rahimyar Khan under the Efficiency and Discipline, Rules, as pointed out earlier by him. In his letter mentioned above. The services of all the three appellants were terminated vide his order dated 24-11-1980. Thus, this order dated 24-11-1980 through which the services of the appellants were terminated was passed in contravention of the instructions/orders issued by Headquarters Deputy Martial Law Administrator, Sector 4, No. 609/ 2/17/L/ML/32, dated 17-10-1980, without taking any departmental action/ proceeding under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, against the appel--lants.
9. A notice was served to the appellants and others, through the newspaper on 15-2-1980, wherein the appellants were shown absent ; but the record of the Education Department shows that no regular proceedings seem to have been conducted against the defaulters after issue of this notice.
Even before passing the impugned order dated 24-11-1980 by respondent No. 1, the exact dates of absence of the appellants were not ascertained and these were not mentioned in the impugned order. A reference would also be necessary to the enquiry report dated 11-11-1980 of the Deputy Education dfficer, Rahimyar Khan, received by the District Education Officer on 16-11-1980., so mentioned in the above impugned order of the District Education Officer, Rahimyar Khan. , This enquiry report is incomplete, slipshod and leads nowhere. This enquiry report does not conclude any of the findings. Rather, it has certified that the particulars (Koief) of Mst. Maqbool Begum and Mst. Khalida Nasreen (the appel--lants have been verified and found correct. Similarly in case of 3rd appellant, Mst. Maqsooda Begum, the appellant's particulars could not be verified as no record was produced either by the appellant or was available in the school or in D. E. O.'s Office. It was also mentioned that Mst. Maqsooda Begum was absent from 13-4-1980. The impugned order dated 24- 11-1,980, terminating the, services of this appellant forthwith, did not show Mst. Maqsooda Begum absent from 13-4-1980. Thus, it can be safely concluded that the impugned order dated 24-11-1980 passed by respondent No. 1, was not only unlawful but also defective and incomplete.
10. Keeping the above analysis in view, we hold that all the three appellants have not been proceeded properly and lawfully as ordered by Headquarters Deputy Martial Law Administrator, Sector No. 4, vide order No. 609/2/17/L/ML/32, dated 17-10-1980 and the impugned orders have been passed in contravention of these orders; as no departmental action was taken against the appellants as per directions of the Martial Law Authorities and the appellants have not been proceeded under the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. Thus, the impugned orders being unlawful are set aside. The cases of all the three appellants are remanded to the competent authority to proceed against the appellants strictly as per directions dated 17-10-1980 of the Headquarters Deputy Martial Law Administrator, Sector 4, referred to above and as per provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. All the three appellants i.e. Mst. Khalida Nasreen, Mst.
Maqbool Begum and Mst. Maqsooda Begum are directed to be re-instated in service td bestow upon them status of the civil servants to proceed against them by the competent authority. The periods of all the three appellants from the dates of their termination of the services to that of the dates of their re-instatements shall be treated as extra--ordinary leave, without pay.
There will be no order as to costs.