THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through, The Secretary Education (EE), Government of the Punjab, Lahore and others vs LIAQAT ALI
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which set aside the removal from service of the respondent, a PTC teacher appointed in 1993, whose services were terminated in 2000 on allegations of misconduct and a bogus appointment. The core legal question was whether the respondent's removal from service on the ground of a bogus appointment was sustainable when the authenticity of his appointment documents had been officially verified and the alleged inquiry report could not be produced. The Supreme Court held that the charges against the respondent could not be substantiated by credible documentary evidence, the authenticity of the appointment documents was confirmed by the Deputy District Education Officer, and the failure to produce the inquiry report warranted an adverse presumption against the petitioners. The Court affirmed the Service Tribunal's decision, laying down the principle that a long-serving employee cannot be removed from service on vague, sketchy, and unsubstantiated grounds.
- Whether an employee can be removed from service on the ground of a bogus appointment without substantiated documentary evidence?
- What is the legal effect when an alleged inquiry report is not produced before the service tribunal despite various directions?
- Does the non-mentioning of an employee's name in a dispatch register have a bearing on the merits of a service matter?
ORDER
' JAVED IQBAL, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21-8- 2001 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of respondent has been accepted by setting aside the order dated 8-6-2000 whereby the respondent was removed from service.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that Liaqat Ali (respondent) was appointed as PTC teacher on 3-5-1993 on the recommendation of Departmental Selection Committee and remained in Service till 12-11-1999 when disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on account of misconduct and appointment against Rules which culminated into his removal from service vide order dated 8-6-2000. After exhausting departmental remedies the respondent approached learned Punjab Service Tribunal by means of appeal which has been accepted, hence this petition.
3. Mr. Muhammad Sharif Butt, learned Advocate Supreme Court entered appearance on behalf of Province of the Punjab and contended strenuously that the learned Service Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the respondent had procured his appointment by implying deceitful means and it was a bogus appointment for all practical purposes. It is also contended that the learned Service Tribunal has ignored the inquiry report furnished by the Deputy. District Education Officer showing that the respondent succeeded in getting bogus appointment which aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice.
4. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of petitioner in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. The judgment impugned has been perused carefully. After having gone through the entire record we are of the considered opinion that the charges levelled against the respondent could not be substantiated on the basis of worth of credence documentary evidence. Insofar as the authenticity of documents on the basis whereof appointment was made had been confirmed by the Deputy District Education Officer by means of letter dated 5-3-1997. The learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of Government of the Punjab when confronted with the said position and asked how the appointment could be declared bogus in view of the authenticity of the documents, no plausible reasoning could be given. It is worth- mentioning that in spite of various directions the inquiry report could not be produced before the Service Tribunal and thus the presumption would be that no such inquiry was ever got conducted.
Non-mentioning of the name of respondent in the dispatch register would have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. The respondent is admittedly in service since 1993 and cannot be removed from service on vague and sketchy grounds which remained unsubstantiated.
5. The conclusion arrived at by the learned Service Tribunal is strictly in accordance with law, settled-norms of justice and being well founded hardly warrants any interference. Besides that no question of law of public importance is involved in the matter on the basis whereof leave could be granted. The petition being meritless is dismissed and .