' BRIG. (RETD) ABDUR RASHID (MEMBER).-Mrs. Zakria Arshad Lodhi, the appellant, was appointed as Junior Teacher on 8th October, 1971 at Nowshera. At that time the Cantonment Schools used to be under the control of the Director Military Lands and Cantonments and subsequently taken over by the Federal Government at the time of nationalization of educational institutions during the reign of the previous regime. Vide Government of Pakistan Cabinet Secretariat (Cabinet Division) letter NO. 04/57/77-Min-II, dated 10th September, 1977, the control and management of the Cantonment and Garrison Schools was transferred from the Federal Ministry of Education to the Directorate of Army Education, GHQ, Rawalpindi. As a consequence thereto, the appellant also became civil servant within meaning of Civil Servants Act, 1973. While so appointed a court of inquiry was ordered against the appellant under GHQ letter No, 04/PF-1083/77-Edn-8 (PS), dated 26th June, 1979. The composition of enquiry committee was GSO-I as President and a Headmaster/Principal (Grade-17) as Member. The said inquiry was however conducted by the Principal of the F. G. Public School, Nowshera with Headmistress F. G. Public School, Risalpur as Member. The said inquiry held the appellant guilty of the following charges :-
(a) You are taking active part in politics.
(b) You had led a procession on 30th September, 1977 in favour of late M r. Zulfikar All Bhutto and made slogans against the present regime.
(c) You are exciting people propagating against the Government.
(d) You are releasing statements to the Press in person and through your husband criticising the policies of Government.
' The appellant was served a show-cause notice, dated 13th September, 1979 to which she furnished reply on 28th September, 1979. She was dismissed vide G H Q Army Education No, 04/PF/1083177-Edn-8 (P S), dated 29th March, 1980. She preferred a departmental appeal against her dismissal order on 1st May, 1980 which was rejected vide Directorate Army Education letter, dated 31st May, 1980. The appellant had already filed her appeal before the Tribunal on 22nd April, 1980 and it matured after she received the rejection order of her departmental appeal mentioned above.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents. The counsel for the appellant highlighted the fact that the enquiry committee had not been constituted as per order of the Deputy Director and that instead of a GSO-I (who is a Lt.-Col.) (sic) hearing it, a Principal had done so. We found that this was, indeed, so. The enquiry proceedings stand vitiated from the very inception and have to be struck down. Any subsequent order based on these enquiry proceedings will also have to be struck down as being void ab initio.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents was unable to produce before us, any notification or order designating authorised officer/ authority in this particular case. Even if we presume that the Deputy Director Education is the authorised officer who ordered the enquiry and Director, Army Education dismissed the departmental appeal as an appellate authority then someone lower than him must have ordered the dismissal of the appellant. Who was it? Also in the absence of any notification as to the designation as authorised officer/authority, it will be presumed that the authority vested only in the President who alone could have acted as the authorised officer/authority in this case. On this ground, too, the appellant's dismissal has to be set aside.
4. In view of the foregoing reasons, we set aside the order of dismissal. The appellant stands re- instated into service. The period falling between her dismissal and re-instatement shall be treated as extraordinary leave without pay. The respondents are at liberty to proceed, afresh against the Appellant according to law and rules.