1. ' This appeal has been submitted under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974.
2. ' Brief facts are that consequent upon the recommendation of the District Recruitment Committee, headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura the appellant was recruited as PTC teacher vide order dated 28-10-1993; that despite the fact that the appointment order of the appellant and testimonials of the appellant are quite genuine and verified as correct, the services of the appellant along with his other colleagues were terminated without any enquiry and without providing opportunity of personal hearing. The appellant represented against the dismissal order before the Director Education Lahore, on 26-6-1999 but the decision of the departmental appeal/representation was not conveyed to the appellant whereupon he filed Appeal 469 of 2002, before the Tribunal which, was withdrawn from the Honourable Court of the Chairman with permission to file fresh appeal after obtaining rejection order on 26-3-2002. Appellant obtained rejection order dated 21-2-1999 and preferred the present service appeal. This appeal has been grounded on the plea that the District Education Officer acted upon as Authority although he is not Authority under the Appointment and Terms and Conditions of Service Rules, and furthermore, the impugned order dated 5-6-1999, imposing the major penalty of dismissal from service is violative to the provisions of E&D Rules and also against the natural justice as neither the inquiry was initiated nor appellant was allowed the opportunity of personal hearing.
3. ' Comments were called from the respondents wherein they have admitted paras. Nos.1 and 2 of the memo. Of appeal but took the plea that the service of the appellant was terminated after issuance of show-cause notice and observing all codal formalities under E&D Rules.
4. 1975.
5. ' Arguments heard and record persued.
6. ' Appellant was recruited as P.T.C. Teacher upon the recommendations of the District Recruitment Committee headed by Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura vide order dated 28-10-1993. The departmental representative was present with record and he failed to produce anSI Show-Cause Notice having been issued to the appellant and he admitted after consulting the record that no regular enquiry was held regarding the allegations of bogus appointment of the appellant. The bogus, fraudulent or forged appointment letter may be manipulated by forged signature of the Appointing Authority or with connivance of the Appointing Authority or by manipulation of the record or by any other conceivable method. No such detail was provided, meaning thereby, no enquiry was held to determine this factual controversy. In the present case, respondents have admitted that the appointment of the appellant was made on the recommendations of District Recruitment Committee. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the appointment of the appellant was bogus. In addition to it, the appellant was not afforded the opportunity of hearing and as such principle of natural justice was flagrantly violated. The charge of bogus appointment or out of merit were based on factual plinth which ,could only be resolved through regular enquiry but it is quite astonishing that no merit list was produced by the respondents. Appellant has made out a case for interference. 'Since, the impugned order has been passed without following the procedure laid down under the E&D Rules, 1975, therefore, the same are not sustainable, under the Law. Hence, I accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders passed by the respondents, direct his reinstatement is service with further direction to the Authority to hold de novo regular enquiry strictly in accordance with the Law. After the enquiry, the Authority shall determine the treatment to be given to the intervening period of the appellant from his date of removal upto his date of reinstatement.