CH. MUHAMMAD SARWAR, MEMBER.-- This appeal u/S. 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, against the order dated 15.4.1999 by which the appellant was awarded the major penalty of removal from service.
Briefly stated the facts leading to the appeal are that the appellant was appointed as Est teacher on 27.12.1995 on the recommendations of District Recruitment Committee.
2. Proceedings under Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 were initiated against him and 7.4.1999 he, was given show cause notice that his documents were found bogus during inquiry and his appointment order is also bogus. The appellant in his reply to the show cause notice stated that his documents are genuine and his documents may be verified from the Secondary Board/University and he is willing to bear the expenses of the verification but he was removed from service vide order dated 15.4.1999. He preferred departmental appeal which was not decided. Hence this appeal.
3. Respondent No. 3 submitted objections to . The memorandum of appeal while no body turned up on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 despite notice, ex-parte proceedings were ordered against them.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, District Attorney and have perused the record and objections to the memorandum of appeal submitted by the respondents.,
5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was appointed by the competent authority after observing all the formalities. He possess requisite qualification and served the department for about four years. His Service were removed without due course of law.
6. Respondent No. 3, Ch. Zulfiqar Ahmad, DEO (Retd.) in his objections to the memorandum of appeal stated that appointment orders were verified by him and the appointment orders were issued by him in accordance with law. Original - certificate of B.A. Has been produced to prove that the appellant has passed the B.Ed. Examination in the year 1994. The certificate of the appellant was not got verified from Secondary Board/University by the respondents. There was thus no cogent reason declaring the certificate of the appellant as bogus.
7. Neither any regular inquiry was conducted nor any witnesses were examined. In the order dated 15.4.1999, the ground on which it is based are not mentioned. The order is thus nullity in the eyes of law.
8. I, therefore, accept the appeal. The impugned order dated 15.4.1999 is set aside. The appellant is reinstated in service. The intervening period shall be treated as extra-ordinary leave without pay.