' Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as PTC Teacher on 30-9-1993. She joined and kept on serving as such. At a later point of time it was noted that her initial appointment letter dated 30-9-1993 was a bogus document whereupon she was proceeded against under the relevant E&D Rules. She joined and participated in the inquiry being conducted. During the said inquiry on 30-6-2000, a notice for personal hearing was issued to her by the Inquiry Officer. This notice was challenged by the appellant through Writ Petition No.7343 of 2000 which stood dismissed through the impugned order dated 30-1-2003.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that since the initial appointment of the appellant is being examined by the Inquiry Officer, therefore, no appeal is competent before the Tribunal in view of section 4(b) of the Punjab Services Tribunals Act, 1976. Further submits that appellant's appointment was earlier examined by a Scrutiny Committee and the same was found to be correct in the year, 1998.
3. We have considered the contention of the learned counsel. Undountedly, since 1993 the appellant had been serving as a civil servant, whether on the basis of valid appointment order or a bogus order. She was enjoying all benefits of a civil servant, therefore, no order detrimental to her service could be passed by the respondents except by adopting the relevant E and D Rules.
Therefore, by all means she is to be treated as a Civil Servant. The question whether her appointment was genuine or bogus is yet to be determined by the Competent Authority. No final order so far has been passed against her. She will have all the remedies available to her under the law at the relevant time if any adverse order is passed against her.
4. Under section 4 (b) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, an appeal is not competent before the Tribunal only in those cases in which the Departmental Authority is determining the fitness or otherwise of a person to be appointed or hold a particular post. In the instant case, the authority is not determining the fitness or otherwise of the appellant, rather the question is whether her appointment letter was genuine on bogus, which is quite different question from being fit or otherwise, therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is without any force.
5. So far as the scrutiny conducted in the year, 1998 is concerned, the same was of general nature whereby the genuineness of her appointment letter was not examined in accordance with law, only its existence was acknowledged by the Deputy District Education Officer, therefore, the same is of no help to the appellant.
6. Even otherwise, the writ petition before this Court was premature as the appellant was only called upon for personal hearing by the Inquiry Officer. She could place her case before him.
7. For what has been stated above, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.