' The appellant was appointed as C.T. Teacher vide order, dated 4-2-1997 on selection through the prescribed procedure. He joined his duty as such w,e,f, 6-2-1997.
2. As per statement of the appellant, he was verbally told by the Headmaster on 27-7-1997 that he should not perform his duties, followed by the written order by him informing the appellant that Government has decided to terminate the services of those whose appointment letters were issued under the signatures of Mr. Muhammad Hussain Gorya, the then D.E.O. (EE), Bahawalnagar.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the services of the appellant have been terminated without notice and without any opportunity of defence. Even no proper order of termination from services has been issued. Accordingly, the petitioner could neither approach the Departmental Appellate Authority nor file an appeal in the Punjab Service Tribunal. As such the appellant had to file writ petition in the High Court which directed the Director Education Bahawalnagar Division to decide the representation/appeal of the appellant vide order, dated 13- 11-1997. The appellant had to file an other writ petition in the High Court, which was disposed of vide order, dated 17-3-1999. Thereafter, the petitioner filed this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal was filed within time and maintainable as per section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974. Accordingly, the appeal was admitted.
4. The learned counsel has relied on judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 27-1-1999 in Appeal No,459 of 1998 under which it was held that the verbal order is not order in the eye of law. It was also held that where a Civil Servant is neither associated with the inquiry nor a party to any action against the appointing authority for issuing bogus or faked appointment letter, he is not liable to be punished. The appellant was neither associated with any inquiry nor provided any opportunity of defence before termination from service and, therefore, appeal is accepted. The appellant is deemed to be in service from the date his services were terminated, since the way in which his services were terminated was not in accordance with prescribed procedure and, therefore, void.