' The appellant Mst. Afzaala Tabassam war appointed as PTC teacher vide order, dated 4-10-1995 on the recommendations of District Recruitment Committee, Narowal and joined her duty as such at Government Girls Primary School Edipur on 5-10-1995. The Appellant had been performing his duty in different Schools till being on the basis of FA/CT, she was awarded the grade of E.S.T. (BS-9) by the respondent No,2 vide order, dated 8-12-1998 and was adjusted at Government Girls Elementary School, Langerkey, Markaz Zafarwal as EST vide order, dated 28-12-1998. All of a sudden, the appellant was summoned relevant by the respondent No,3 vide order. Dated 20-8-2001 alongwith relevant documents in her defence as according to the notice the appellant had been removed from service as PTC teacher by respondent No,2 vide order, dated 19-6-1999 and as a result of which the promotion of the, appellant against the post of EST had also been cancelled by the respondent . No,2. The appellant requested the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 vide representations dated 22-8-2001 and 24- 8-2001 respectively for supply of the removal from service order as PTC teacher and cancellation of promotion order as EST but in vain. The appellant knocked the door of Lahore High Court through Writ Petition No, 16837 of 2001 which was dismissed on 10-9-2001 with the direction that she should appear before respondent No,3 and reply to the show-cause notice.
Accordingly the appellant made representation to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 but the respondent No,2 intimated vide, dated that neither in respect of the appellant any Appellate Authority existed nor she could recall order passed by his predecessor. The appellant being aggrieved by the order, dated 10-9-2001 passed by the learned Single Bench of the High Court and by the order, dated 29- 9-2001 passed by the respondent No,2, the appellant filed an Intra-Court No, 891 of 2001 in Writ Petition No,16437 of 2001 which was heard on 22-10-2001 and status quo was ordered to be maintained for 20 days and meanwhile the appellant was directed to approach the Punjab Service Tribunal. The appellant then filed Appeal No, 2337 of 2001 in the Punjab Service Tribunal which was heard by the learned Chairman on 13-11-2001 and disposed of the appeal with the direction that respondent No,2 would forthwith make the order of removal from service and cancellation of promotion order available to the appellant so that appellant would be in a position to seek redress from the competent Court. The appellant accordingly made representation on 8-12-2001 to respondent No,2, on providing the appellant the copies of both the orders and passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by that she preferred appeal against both the orders on 25-1-2002. The respondent No,1 disposed of the appeal vide order, dated 15-8-2002 on the sole ground that he had not been delegated the powers of the Appellate Authority by the Government so far. The appellant has assailed the original order, dated 13-2-1999 and the appellate order dated 15-8-2002 through the instant appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the original order as well as the promotion order once implemented cannot be withdrawn through the impugned order, dated 13-2-1999 after elapsing a considerable period without any show-cause notice and without assigning any reason thereto as such the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. He has also argued that the appellant has been discriminated against as the other EST teacher whose name appear at Sr.
No, 17 in the appointment order, dated 8-12-1998 and who was also served a show-cause notice, dated 20-8-2001 by the respondent No,3 was allowed to continue as PTC teacher. Learned counsel has also alleged mala fide of Bilal Ahmed Qamar, the then District Education Officer, Narowal, as the appellant had already joined as EST teacher and was no more PTC teacher on 19-6-1999, the date of her removal from service. The said removal order was nullity in the eye of law. The appellant had been condemned unheard. He had further contended that no regular inquiry was conducted by the respondents to reach some positive conclusion.
3. On the other hand learned District Attorney has opposed the appeal relying upon the parawise comments submitted by the respondents.
4. Arguments heard, record perused. Perusal of record reveals that no regular inquiry was conducted by the respondents before passing the impugned order whereby the services of the appellant were removed and his promotion order as EST teacher was recalled. The department must have looked into the matter through a regular inquiry whether her appointment orders as well as promotion order were genuine and actually further whether issued by the Competent Authority on recommendation of the Departmental Recruitment Committee of the District. I have also observed that the appellant has been deprived of her right to file departmental appeal/representation as according to the record, the delegation of powers in respect of appointment of the Appellate Authority has not been granted by the Government to any officer for the purpose. If the Appellate Authority did not exist at the time of filing the departmental appeal, the appellant is not at fault and she cannot be refused to exercise her Constitutional and fundamental right to prefer an appeal before the Authority appointed for the purpose.
5. I accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders. The appellant is reinstated in service with immediate effect and remand the case to the authority to hold a full-fledged inquiry in respect of genuineness of the original as well as the order by which the promotion of the appellant was withdrawn. While finalizing the inquiry the aspects need to be examined whether the appointment was made strictly in accordance with the existing recruitment policy prevailing at the time of the said appointment or not. Speaking order alongwith reasoning needs to be passed. The salaries of the intervening period will be decided by the Authority after outcome of the inquiry. The parties are left to bear their own costs.