' This appeal has been filed against an order, dated 24-2-2000 whereby District Education Officer (M-EE), Lahore City respondent No,2 removed the appellant from service.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that on 11-2-1997 Deputy District Education Officer, Lahore respondent No,1 appointed the appellant as PTC Teacher on the recommendations of Departmental Selection Committee. The appellant continued serving the department. However, on 21-84998 she was served with a charge-sheet on the allegation that she had produced a bogus PTC Result Card at the time of her appointment. The appellant in his reply denied the charge. On the basis of an enquiry report, which the respondents have not been able to produce before me and about which departmental representative has conceded that it was not available in the record, the District Education Officer (M-EE), Lahore City as Authority in case of the appellant has passed the impugned order. The appellant filed a departmental appeal before. Director Education, Lahore Division, Lahore which he has rejected. It has led the appellant to approach the Punjab Service Tribunal through the present service appeal.
3. In support of appeal, the counsel contends that the appellant possessed a result card of PTC which had been duly verified by the Assistant Director (Examination), Directorate of Education, Gujranwala Division and as such it could not be termed as bogus; that during her service, the appellant had also qualified CT Course in the year 1999 which is higher qualification than PTC; that the appellant had denied the allegation, and therefore, to resolve this controversy of facts a regular enquiry was necessary which was not conducted by the department; that the departmental authority had no evidence whatsoever to conclude that the PTC Certificate duly verified by Assistant Director Examination was not genuine.
4. District Education Officer, Lahore has filed written objections. The case of the Department is that the appellant had produced a result card which was declared bogus by the Enquiry Officer as well as by Judicial Enquiry Officer and the appellant was, therefore, rightly penalized.
5. Arguments were heard and record perused. The appellant possessed a result card duly verified by Assistant Director (Exam.) of the Directorate of Education-Gujranwala which was the examining body of PTC Courses. There is apparently no reason to disbelieve the genuineness of this result card unless the Assistant Director (Exam.) aforesaid had disowned his verification which has not happened. As to the production of result certificate the appellant has contended that the record of the Directorate of Education regarding examination of PTC had been burnt and an F.I.R., in this respect was duly lodged with the Local Police Station. Departmental Authorities have not denied this fact. Magistrate who conducted the judicial enquiry has also confirmed it.
6. It is significant that the charge-sheet was issued to the appellant but no enquiry worth the name seems to have been conducted because no such enquiry report was available. Departmental Representative has categorically conceded that no such enquiry was held. The judicial enquiry has nowhere mentioned that the result card of the appellant was bogus. It has made a generalized observation that the Gazette of the Department was doubtful.
7. The appellant has also qualified C.T. Examination which is a higher qualification than that of PTC.
Viewed in this context the appellant can be safely considered to have the requisite academic as well as professional qualification for working as PTC Teacher. I, therefore, hold that the impugned order cannot be sustained.
8. For the above reasons the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the appellant is reinstated in service with all back benefits. There shall be no order as to the cost. Announced.