' ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHARY (MEMBER).--MISS Nasrin Akhtar of Chak No, 367/E.B., Tehsil Burewala District Vehari has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein she has impleaded the District Education Officer, Vehari and the State as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that order, dated 21st November, 1983 passed by the District Education Officer, Vehari, terminating her services be set aside and it has also been prayed that the appellant be ordered to continue in her service.
3. The appeal is still at the stage of preliminary hearing.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Teachress on 17th May, 1981 in Chak No, 407/E.B., Tehsil Burewala, District Vehari by the respondent No,
1. On 27th February, 1983, the appellant was transferred to Chak No, 367/E.B., Tehsil Burewala, District Vehari. In the meanwhile a complaint was received against the appellant from Mr. Rahmatullah of the same village that the appellant is not the same lady who passed the Matriculation Examination from the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha and she is misrepresenting herself as Miss Nasreen Akhtar daughter of Shah Muhammad, when she is actually Miss Nisreen Akhtar daughter of Khushi Muhammad. On due scrutiny of the record the above facts were found to be true and the services of the appellant were terminated by District Education Officer, Vehari vide order dated 21st November, 1983. The appellant made an appeal to the Director Education, Multan Region, Multan on 22nd November, 1983 but no reply has been received so far. Hence this appeal.
5. We have heard the parties i. e., Ch. Bashir Ahmad, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A.G.
Humayun, District Attorney, assisted by the representative of the respondents, on behalf of respondents.
6. The case is at the preliminary stage of hearing. However, the parawise comments were obtained from the respondents to arrive at a correct conclusion and to adjudicate this case in a proper manner.
7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the services of the appellant have been terminated on a false complaint of one Rehmat Ullah, School Teacher of the same Chak, who had enmity with the family of the appellant. He has emphasized that the appellant is the same lady whose parentage is Shah Muhammad and not Khushi Muhammad and she is also the same lady who has qualified Matriculation Examination from the Government Girls High School, Gojra, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha as per photostat copy of Matriculation Certificate No, 1203, attached with the appeal. Thus, the action of the respondent No, 1, in terminating the services of the appellant is based on wrong assumptions and is unlawful.
8. On the other hand the learned District Attorney, assisted by the representative of the respondents has relied on the parawise comments submitted by the respondent No, 1 and has submitted that actual facts of this case are as follows :-
(1) The brother of the appellant named Abdul Majeed got her sister admitted for the first time in primary school Chak No, 367/E.B. On 9th November, 1983, submitting an application to the headmistress of the school giving full particulars of his sister i. e., date of birth, father's name, caste etc. In this application the father's name of the appellant was shown as Khushi Muhammad.
(ii) Real father of the appellant possessed some landed property in Chak No, 367/E.B. Tehsil Burewala, District Vehari and consequence upon his death the revenue Patwari entered.
' In the mutation deed, the appellant has been shown as the daughter and legal heir of Khushi Muhammad.
' The learned District Attorney has relied on the documents Annexures D-II and D-III attached with the parawise comments of the respondent No,
1. The learned District Attorney has also referred to the paras. (c) and (d) of the parawise comments of the respondent No, I, and has submitted that these paras. Make it absolutely clear that the appellant, Miss Nasreen Akhtar is daughter of Khushi Muhammad and not of Shah Muhammad. Concluding his arguments it has been submitted by the learned District Attorney that the appellant is guilty of impersonation and heating the Government.
Her services have been terminated correctly and no exception can be taken against the impugned order which is a valid and lawful order.
9. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record of this case. On hearing the arguments of the parties, perusal of the relevant record produced by the respondents as well as the appellant, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant is the daughter of Khushi Muhammad, resident of Chak No, 367/E.B., Tehsil Burewala, District Vehari and not daughter of Shah Muhammad of Chak No, 367/G.B., District Toba Take Singh as claimed by the appellant. This fact is fully supported by documents produced by the respondents alongwith the parawise comments and other record produced before us. Thus, no exception can be taken against the impugned order which is a correct and valid order.
10. The result of the above analysis of the case is that there is no force in the appeal which is dismissed, in limine.