ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Khuda Bakhsh ex-Junior Clerk, Government Comprehensive High School, Multan has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded the Director, Public Instructions, Punjab, and Director of Education, Multan Division Multan, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the order dated 24-3-1981 passed by the respondent No. 2 and order dated 6-7-1981 passed by the respondent No. 1 be set aside and the appellant be declared to be continuous in service with all back benefits of the service.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Mr. Khuda Bakhsh, was working as Junior Cleric in the Directorate of Education, Multan Division Multan on 27-4-1980. He put up an office note in which he stated that 45 posts of Junior Clerks were lying vacant. So 42 candidates borne on approved list were appointed 3 posts were kept in reserve for over age candidates which were filled on the receipt of sanction for relaxation of their upper age. The appellant kept concealed 13 posts of Junior Clerks for ulterior motives and issued 13 bogus orders by putting bogus signatures of the competent authority and bogus despatch No and date. He also put his own initials under all these bogus appointment orders. This forgery came to notice when the Headmaster Government M. C.
High School, Okara, District Sahiwal, informed the Deputy Director on 18-5-1980 on telephone that the appointment order of Muhammad Bashir son of Gul Muhammad as Junior Clerk in his school appeared to be fake. Whereupon the Deputy Director (Colleges) visited the place to see the things on the spot and the order referred to above were found bogus. Thereafter a circular letter . No. 2627, dated 20-5-1.980 was issued by the Deputy Director (Colleges) to all the Heads of Offices/Educational Institutions in the Division to check and verify all the appointment orders of Junior Clerks issued after 1-4-1980. It also came to notice of the Deputy Director that there were several - other fake appointments. Consequently Mr. Ghulam Hussain, Assistant Director was deputed to hold a fact finding enquiry. He interrogated the appellant who was the founder of such fake appointment orders. The appellant admitted that he had issued 13 fake appointment orders of Junior Clerks under forged signatures of the Deputy Director (Colleges) and under bogus despatch numbers. His written statement in this behalf was obtained by the Assistant Director. As the appellant was found responsible for the above act, he was transferred to the Government High School, Dunyapur (Multan). Thereafter the appellant was charge-sheeted. In reply to charge-- sheet, he again admitted the allegations levelled against him. Another enquiry was conducted to Mr. Faiz Raza Gardezi, Assistant Professor, Government College, Bosan Road, Multan. 'The Enquiry Officer requested for. The transfer back to Multan of -the appellant to facilitate the early disposal of enquiry. The appellant was consequently transferred to Government Comprehensive High School, Multan and was intimated the charges levelled against him. He admitted all the charges in writing.
The Enquiry Officer finalized his report and having found the appellant guilty of the charges, submitted the enquiry report alongwith his recommendations. A show-cause notice was issued by the authority to the appellant vide his order dated 14-7-1980. He was also given a chance to be heard in person. The appellant was heard in person by the authority on 19-7-1980 and request--ed in writing to be pardoned through his application. He was found guilty of misconduct and was removed from service. He preferred an appeal to respondent No. 1 and was also heard in person.
Since the authority has not taken action in accordance with operative provisions of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975, the case was remanded to the authority. Conse--quently the District Education Officer, Multan was appointed as authorised officer. The authorised officer recommended to the competent authority for the removal of the appellant from service.
Accordingly the appellant was removed from service. He preferred an appeal to respondent No. 1.
He was given a personal hearing and his appeal was rejected. Hence this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued this case mainly on the legal issue submitting that the competent authority to impose punishment to the appellant was not the Director of Education, Multan but was the District Education Officer. Multan as the appellant stood transferred firstly to Government High School, Dunyapur and then to Government Compre--hensive High School, Multan and continued to work there. Both the above High Schools are under the administrative control of the District Education officer and was not under the control of Director of Education when the proceedings against the appellant were held, he was an employee of District Education Officer, Multan. Thus, the orders of his removal from service passed by the Director of Education, Multan are without jurisdiction and hence void. Thus, these orders through which the appellant was removed from service are unlawful. The appellant's counsel further submit--ted as these orders are not lawful, he need not go into the details of merits of the case, the orders being void ab initio. Furthermore when the authori--sed officer was appointed, he did not order for holding the enquiry into the matter thus, the appellant was deprived of opportunities to defend himself by allowing him to cross-question the witnesses etc. Controverting these arguments, the learned pleader of the respondents produced Notification dated 5th March, 1974, issued by the Services, General Administration and Information Department wherein the West Pakistan Education Department Delegation of Powers Rules, 1962, has been substituted with the . Existing schedule annexed hereto, in case of ministerial staff of the Education Department, the ministerial staff on the strength of Divisional Directorate as shown under Sr. N. .10. (b) (i) of the said schedule, the competent authority to remove the appellant from service is the Director of Education concerned.
The appellant being employee of the Divisional Directorate, (though temporary transferred to Government Comprehensive School, Multan-due to administrative reasons), the competent authority to remove him from service is the Director of Education, Multan. Thus, he was removed from service by the proper competent authority. As far as the other arguments of the learned - counsel-for the appellant regarding enquiry is concerned, the learned Government Pleader for respondents, further submitted the appellant had himself admitted in writing time and again the allegations levelled against him, in view of his admittance of his guilt, holding of regular enquiry was uncalled and unnecessary ; and misconduct stood proved against him. The learned District Attorney .Concluded that the appellant has been removed from service by the competent authority and that to when he admitted his guilt in writing and thus misconduct stood proved against him.
5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and also have perused the record very carefully of this case. We first take up the legal issue so raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. As the appellant was an employee of the office of the Directorate of Education, Multan Division, Multan, thus, he was proceeded against rightly by the competent authority i. e.
Director of Education, Multan and also he was the proper competent authority to remove him from service. . This fact has been verified by us from the substituted Notification regarding delegation of rowers so relied upon by pleader of the respondents mentioned above. Thus, the impugned order of his removal from service by respondent No. 21 is a valid order. This is also clear from the record that the appellant has time and again given in writing that he had committed this guilt and be pardoned for the same. Keeping in view this admission of the appellant, the charge of misconduct stood proved against him.
6. Keeping in view the above analysis we hold that there is no merits in this appeal which is dismissed as such.
There will be no order as to costs.