This petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, challenges the order dated 7- 4-1977, passed by the Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service of the Board for tampering with the office record, using ink remover on office documents with ulterior motives, declaring certain roll numbers successful in the examination while they actually failed in the examination and for gross negligence and misconduct, and the order dated 28-5-1984 passed by the Controlling Authority, respondent No. 3 herein, whereby the appeal/representation filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the Controlling Authority and the order dated 31-12-1984 rejecting the review petition by the said Authority.
2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk on 6-5-1965 in the Lahore Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education. On bifurcation of Lahore Board, the petitioner was assigned to Sargodha Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, where he was promoted as Senior Clerk with effect from 1-6-1968 and was deputed in Examination Branch of Sargodha Board during 1972-75 from where he was transferred to General Branch from January, 1975. He was granted extraordinary leave from 15-6-1975 to 14-6-1976. However, after surrendering the leave he resumed duties from September, 1975.
3. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 24-10-1975, wherein it was alleged that he has tampered with the Result Sheet of Roll No. 51466 pertaining to Matric Examination (Spring) 1975, whereby he increased marks from 2 to 22. Four other * employees were also served with the same charges. The petitioner was thereafter served with five more charge-sheets dated 12-8-1976, 14-9- 1976, 9-10-1976, 8-11-1976 and 24-11-1976. This led to departmental enquiry conducted against him by an Enquiry Officer, namely, Ch. Muhammad Shafique but no order was passed on that enquiry report. Later a fresh enquiry was conducted by another Enquiry Officer, namely, Ch. Riasat Ali, who submitted his enquiry report dated 22-2-1977 on, which the Chairman of the Board passed the impugned order. The show-cause notice against the proposed dismissal action was duly published in the Daily `Pakistan Times' and Daily `Mashriq' on 31-3-1977. The petitioner did not respond to the above show-cause notice and a formal order of dismissal was passed on 7-4-1977.
4. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Minister for Education, respondent No. 3 herein, who was the Controlling Authority under Section 11 of the Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976. The Controlling Authority, vide order dated 23-9-1981, directed to appoint another Enquiry Officer for conducting a proper enquiry. Accordingly, the Sargodha Board appointed Mr. Bashir-uz-Zaman Bungial as Enquiry Officer against the petitioner. A letter dated 9- 3-1982 was issued to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry proceedings. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report wherein the petitioner was found guilty of charges levelled against him. The petitioner was supplied with the copies of previous reports, copies of charge-sheet and show--- cause notice vide Memo No. 4815/SE (Est.) dated 22-3-1982. The petitioner received the said letter alongwith Annexures attached and also admittedly examined the record on 24-3-1982. He filed detailed reply to the show-cause notice dated 27-3-1982. The Enquiry Officer adjudged the petitioner guilty of the charges. The enquiry report was duly submitted to the Controlling Authority who, after examining the report of the Enquiry Officer and the material placed before him and after hearing the petitioner upheld dismissal of the petitioner from service vide order dated 28-5-1984 which 'reads as follows: - "I have heard the case in detail, represented by the petitioner in person and also the case of the department and has seen record. The charge-sheet originally issued against the petitioner containing allegations of tampering with examination record of various candidates, showing them as having passed in spite of the fact that they had failed, have also been shown to the petitioner.
The record was under his supervision and he was responsible for the maintenance of that record being custodian of record during that period. The allegation of the petitioner that he was not heard has also been belied from the record. He has been given repeated chances to plead his case and provide the witnesses in his defence. But none has come to support the case. The petitioner was given full chance to defend his case and he was found guilty in various charges as a result of those enquiries.
I see no reason to disagree with findings of the Board. Previous orders of dismissal passed by the Board will stand. The petitioner is present and informed accordingly."
The petitioner filed a review petition before the Controlling Authority, which was also rejected on 31- 12-1984, hence this petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order of dismissal was passed on 22-7-1977 when show-cause notice against the proposed action was published in the newspapers on 31-3-1977 and, therefore, the impugned order is ex facie mala fide.
6. The contention is devoid of any force. The previous order of dismissal was set aside by the Controlling Authority and a fresh enquiry was conducted into the allegations levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner duly participated in the enquiry proceedings and examined the record.
Thus, disciplinary proceedings initiated against him do not suffer from any legal infirmity. The observation in the impugned order, "Previous orders of dismissal, passed by the Board will stand does not affect the validity of the order under consideration, in that, one has to examine the substance contained therein and not its mere form. The order, when read as whole, clearly shows that after following the due procedure the order of dismissal was passed and no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. Furthermore, a finding of fact has been recorded by the Controlling Authority after thorough scrutiny of the record that the petitioner was found guilty of the charges levelled against him. The impugned order is based on proper appraisal of evidence on record which is not open to interference in these proceedings. Resultantly, the writ petition, fails and is hereby dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs.