' By this common judgment, I intend to dispose of Appeal No,1726 of 2003 brought by Muhammad Aslam, Superintendent, Office of the District Education Office (SE), Narowal and Appeal No,1727 of 2003 brought by Mst. Sajida Parveen, Secondary School Teacher, posted at Government Girls High School, Dhamthal, Tehsil and District Narowal, as common questions of fact and of law arise, and further the penalty of removal from service emanates from single order passed by Secretary Education, competent authority, on 29-11-2002.
2. Appellants are aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority dated 21-6-2003 whereby appeals of the appellants were dismissed and the order of the authority dated 29-11-2002 removing the appellants from service under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers)
Ordinance, 2000 was maintained.
3. Appellant Muhammad Aslam was served with the following show-cause notice:-- "That while posted as Superintendent, 0/o District Education Officer (SE), Narowal, you committed the following irregularities:--
(i) That you manoeuvred appointment by transfer of one Muhammad Bootay Khan through Order No,6578/E(W), dated 25-11-1998 showing him Naib Qasid of GGMS, Kulla Mandiala Markaz, Nadokey, District Narowal working in the said school since 21-3-1996. He was not employee of the said school.
Hence he has committed fraud.
(ii) You got changed the cadre of the Naib Qasid to Chowkidar illegally by the DEO (SE), Narowal.
(iii) You managed transfer of the said employee to GCET (M), Narowal by concealing the facts and without ascertaining the facts and report of the concerned Headmistress and violated established procedure.
(iv) That you arranged bogus appointment of Mr. Muhammad Bootay Khan through transfer Order No, 6578/E(W) dated 25-11-1998. Such appointment was against the rules and made without observing codal formalities. Thus you misused authority in fraudulent way.
' By reasons of the above, you appear to be inefficient and guilty of misconduct within the meaning of sections 5 to 8 of the said rule and as such you are liable to disciplinary action under the PRSSP- 2000 which may include imposition of one or more of the penalties mentioned in the said rule.
' You are hereby requested to submit your written defence within seven days of receipt of this charge-sheet direct to the undersigned."
' Whereas appellant Sajida Parveen received the following statement of allegations:-- "That she is main accomplice in arranging the bogus record of appointment of Mr. Bootay Khan and drawing salary."
Muhammad Aslam, Superintendent denied the allegations stating that Bootay Khan was never appointed by the office of the District Education Officer (SE), Narowal. However, his transfer application duly recommended by the respective D.D.O./Headmistress, Government Girls Elementary School, Kulla Mandiala, regarding existence of vacant post of Chowkidar and containing the recommendations of the then Education Minister was received in the officer of the District Education Officer, Narowal on 6-11-1998 under Diary No, 7503. The application was processed by the dealing Assistant and a note was put up for seeking the approval of the District Education Officer, which the appellant endorsed the view of the dealing Assistant in routine under bona fide belief that Bootay Khan was appointed as Chowkidar. Appellant stated that he cannot be held liable for the fraud committed by Bootay Khan. He also denied the change of cadre of Bootay Khan from Naib Qasid to Chowkidar. Mst. Sajida Parveen, S.S.T. Also denied the allegations and stated that she has never been posted as Headmistress to Government Girls Elementary School, Kula Mandiala, and at the time of appointment of Bootay Khan by transfer, Syeda Bano was the incharge, who used to perform all the duties of the Headmistress. She stated that Bootay Khan was never seen by her and she had no knowledge about his transfer and joining the post of Chowkidar.
If any papers regarding the transfer and posting of Bootay Khan indicate her signatures, the same be presumed to be forged. She admitted that for some time, she was appointed as D.D.O., Government Girls Elementary School Kula Mandiala, but signed the papers only when they were countersigned by the Principal. The Inquiry Officer vide his report came to the conclusion that the charges against Muhammad Aslam and Sajida Parveen stood proved recommending major penalty of reduction to a lower stage in pay scale upon both the accused/appellants. The Inquiry Officer recommended minor penalty of censure to be imposed upon Muhammad Afzal Bhatti, Assistant, Office of D.E.O. (SE), Norowal and exoneration of Bilal Ahmad Qamar, former D.E.O.
Norwoal, whereas Bootay Khan, Chowkidar was recommended to be dismissed from service. The Secretary Education i,e, the competent authority vide impugned order dated 29-11-2002 removed the appellants from service which was upheld in appeal to the Chief Secretary, Government vide order dated 21-6-2003. The co-accused Bilal Ahmad Qamar was exonerated by the Chief Secretary in appeal vide order dated 21-6-2003. Similarly Muhammad Afzal Bhatti, Assistant to the Office of District Education Officer (SE), Narowal was also absolved.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that a rank discrimination has been meted out to the appellants as harsh penalty of removal from service has been imposed upon them, whereas co-accused against whom similar allegations were levelled on the basis of identical evidence, have been absolved, thus violating fundamental rights of the appellants enshrined in the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. It was next contended that the list of witnesses provided with the charge-sheet were not examined by the Inquiry Officer and to the contrary, some other witnesses were examined, who were not mentioned in the list, thereby taking the appellant by surprise. Further contention of the counsel was that the appellants were not allowed to cross- examine the witnesses, and lastly it was contended that the authority, without giving reasons, differed with the recommendations of the Inquiry Officer regarding the imposition of penalty.
Learned District Attorney on the other hands assisted by the departmental representative, supported the impugned orders.
5. I have heard the respective counsel at length and perused the record.
6. Prosecution examined two witnesses namely Miss Yasmin Tahira, PTC Teacher, Government Girls Elementary School, Kulla Mandiala and Malik Bashir Ahmad, Assistant, Office of District Education Officer, Narowal to prove the charges against the appellant. I have gone through the inquiry report wherein statement of the above mentioned eye-witnesses were recorded and I find that full opportunity was extended to the appellants to cross-examine the witnesses, which they availed.
Not only the statement of the appellants alongwith other accused were recorded in detail, but each accused was given a chance to cross-examine the co-accused. The accused were also given a chance to produce evidence, oral or documentary, in defence, which they declined and in token of its correctness, signed the order-sheet. Miss Yasmin Tahira stated on oath that she teaches at Government Girls Elementary School, Kulla Mandiala in capacity of PTC Teacher since 22-10-1996, and during this period, no one by the name of Bootay Khan worked in the school. In the record too, none by the name of Bootay Khan as Class-IV employee has been entered. The witness further stated that Assistant Education Officer of her Markiz- was Sajida Parveen. Muhammad Bootay, co-accused stated that he paid Rs,24,000 to Muhammad Aslam appellant in order to get him a job. Resultantly an order of appointment was handed over to him by Muhammad Aslam and he used to take him to get his presence marked in the Government Girls Elementary School, Kulla Mandiala, but he never signed any form or marked any register to show his presence, rather Muhammad Aslam used to tell him that his presence would be marked and he need not bother about it. The witness stated that he was made to work in the house of Sajida Parveen, PTC Teacher for 2/3 months. Sometimes, witness was paid by Sajida Parveen and sometimes by Muhammad Aslam, but no signatures were obtained from him in token of the receipt of pay in the sum of Rs,500 or 700. Complete pay was never given to him and after his transfer, the relinquishing 'report was given to him by Muhammad Aslam. However, the signatures of Sajida Parveen were obtained by Muhammad Aslam. The accused Muhammad Bootay admitted that on 3-11-1998, Minister Education passed order on his application that he should be employed and on 6-11-1998, application for transfer was got marked by Muhammad Aslam from concerned Nazim.
Muhammad Bootay further admitted that he made an application to the Anti-Corruption against Muhammad Aslam for taking bribe. In reply to the questions put .By appellant Sajida Parveen, the co-accused Muhammad Bootay answered that she lived in Kashmiri Bazar, Narowal and was newly married without having any children. In reply to another question of the lady appellant, he answered that the report was signed by her at her house at 3.00 p.m. Muhammad Bootay further admitted that he did not give any application in reply to the advertisement for employment in the Education Department. He further stated that when he received the orders of appointment, he was not working in the office of District Education Officer. He admitted that although he joined the Government Elementary School, Kulla Mandiala, but he never worked there. Muhammad Bootay also admitted that Sajida Parveen recommended his transfer from one school to another and the transfer orders were given to him by Muhammad Aslam. Although Mst. Sajida Parveen has denied having recommended the transfer of Bootay Khan, Class-IV employee, yet admitted that Muhammad Aslam appellant showed her the papers of Bootay Khan, which were signed by her which she was not able to deny to be in her hand-writing and begged for pardon. Mst. Sajida Parveen in reply to the question put to her by Muhammad Aslam appellant, admitted that she did not make any complaint to anyone regarding the forgery of her signatures and did not make any attempt to know as to why her signatures were forged as she, according to her, did not have sufficient experience. The Inquiry Officer held Bootay Khan, co-accused guilty and recommended major penalty of dismissal from service. Similarly he held Muhammad Aslam, Superintendent, appellant guilty of managing bogus appointment order, joining and relieving report, LPC and Service Book of Bootay Khan. Muhammad Aslam succeeded in obtaining transfer orders of Bootay Khan and joined him against the vacant post of Chowkidar in College for Elementary Teachers (M), Narowal. Major penalty of reduction to a lower stage in pay scale was recommended. In the case of Mst. Sajida Parveen, Inquiry Officer found her guilty on the basis of the evidence of two prosecution witnesses and the cross-questioning of the accused as she managed to arrange the bogus record of appointment, and transfer of Bootay Khan under the pressure of Muhammad Aslam, Superintendent as well political pressure of the MPA concerned. In her case also, major penalty of reduction to lower stage in pay scale was recommended.
7. The Secretary Edueation/competent authority of both the appellants after extending hearing to them concluded that Bootay Khan co-accused was not an employee of Education Department, but he was shown as Naib Qasid, Government Girls Elementary School, Kulla Mandiala through concocted and fictitious record. His application was recommended by Sajida Parveen as D .D .0. Of the school which was neither diarised nor sent through proper channel and did not bear the signatures of the school incharge. The case was of illegal appointment through transfer and both the appellants played their role individually and collectively for commission of this fraud. The authority by giving good reasons for differing with the recommendations of the Inquiry Officer imposed major penalty of removal from service with immediate effect as the nature of the charges were serious and stood proved. The Appellate Authority after scrutiny of the record, agreed with the authority vide his order dated 21-6-2003.
8. The exegensis of the whole record had demonstrated abundantly that the case of Bilal Ahmad Qamar, former D.E.O., Narowal and Muhammad Afzal Bhatti, Assistant in the Office of District Education Officer, Narowal is totally different from the case of the appellants. In the case of former, there was no evidence to link them with any kind of misconduct and it is for this reason that they were absolved by the authority, whereas the case of the appellants, as discussed, their complicity was fully proved, therefore, no discrimination was practised upon the appellants. The list of witnesses produced by the prosecution mentioned six names out of which Mst. Yasmin Tahir and Malik Bashir Ahmad, as observed, were examined. No witness other than, the witnesses named in the list was examined. It is true that four of the witnesses named in the list of witnesses were not examined, but then the prosecution is not legally bound to examine all its witnesses. The defence could have called any of the witnesses not produced by prosecution which they failed to do so. The prosecution has fully proved its case against both the appellants.
9. The appeal brought by the appellants is without merit. I am inclined to alter the penalty of removal from service to compulsory retirement as the prosecution has not been able to prove that either Muhammad Aslam or Sajida Parveen were bribed, but it has certainly proved their connivance to manipulate an illegal order in the appointment of Bootay Khan. Resultantly, with the aforesaid modification, the impugned orders are upheld and the appeals are dismissed.