DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER and others vs Hafiz MUHAMMAD ISHAQ
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside the termination orders of several school teachers and directed the department to conduct a regular inquiry into each case. The respondents were initially appointed in 1997, but their appointments were subsequently cancelled due to alleged irregularities. Following previous litigation, the Supreme Court had directed the District Education Officer to examine each case independently. However, the department issued stereotype orders terminating their services, prompting further appeals to the Service Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the department complied with the Supreme Court's prior mandate to apply an independent mind to each individual case. The Supreme Court held that the department failed to adhere to the previous directive, as the orders were identical in substance, merely changing names and numbers. Consequently, the Court upheld the Service Tribunal's decision to remand the cases for a regular inquiry, affirming that administrative authorities must apply their independent mind to the specific facts of each case rather than issuing generic, stereotype orders.
- Whether an administrative authority satisfies a judicial directive to consider cases independently by issuing stereotype orders?
- Can a service tribunal remand a matter to the department for a regular inquiry when the initial termination order was passed without proper application of mind?
- Is a generic order terminating employment valid if it fails to address the specific facts of individual cases?
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- Petitioner being aggrieved from the judgment, dated 29th January, 2004 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal has prayed for leave to appeal. Concluding para. From the impugned judgment is reproduced hereinbelow for convenience:-- "For the reasons given above, impugned orders are set aside and position/status of the appellants immediately before the passing of the impugned orders dated 16-9-2002 is restored. The concerned authority is directed to hold a regular inquiry into each case and also to take into account whatever collateral evidence was available, giving a fair chance of rebuttal to each appellant. It is also ordered that fresh speaking orders shall be passed in individual cases. Appeals are disposed of in these terms."
2. Precisely stating the facts giving rise to instant petitions are that respondents were appointed as School Teachers (Arabic Teacher, E.S.T. And D.M. Teacher etc.) on 4th February, 1997 in District Bahawalnagar as per orders of appointment issued by the then District Education Officer.
Subsequently, department on having noticed that the appointments of the respondents suffer from irregularities, cancelled their appointments on 19th February, 1997 by issuing a general order under the signature of Secretary, Education, Government of Punjab. The respondents preferred appeals before the Service Tribunal, which were remanded to the Secretary Education for the proceedings strictly in accordance with law. It is stated that on remand no action was taken as such the respondents preferred petitions for leave to appeal before this Court, which were disposed on 5th July, 2002 whereby directions were made to District Education Officer, Bahawalnagar to look into the facts of each case by applying his own independent mind without any extraneous consideration and local influence to arrive at a fair and just conclusion. It seems that in pursuance of order of this Court the District Education Officer by passing a stereotype order dated 16th September, 2002 once again decided against the respondents with the observations that their appointments shall be deemed to have. Been withdrawn from the date of issue. The respondents again approached to the Punjab Service Tribunal for the redressal of their grievance. Appeals filed by them have been accepted by means of impugned judgment whereby the cases once again have been remanded to the Department for regular inquiry in each case etc. As such instant petitions for leave to appeal have been filed.
3. Ms. Yasmin Sehgal, learned Assistant Advocate-General contended that in response to order of this Court dated 5th July, 2002 cases of the respondents were considered independently and thereafter competent authority concluded that they were appointed illegally as such the Service Tribunal had no authority to remand the case for conducting a regular inquiry.
4. Learned counsel appearing for caveators argued that the Department in fact had failed to follow the directions issued by this Court vide judgment dated 5th July, 2002 and disposed of the cases of respondents by passing a stereotype order without considering each case independently.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the order, dated 16th September, 2002, which has been passed after the remand of the case by this Court. A perusal of order dated 16th September, 2002 indicates that except the change of names and the number etc. In all substance, the orders in all the cases are identical meaning thereby that the competent authority has failed to apply its mind independently on the facts of each case, whereas this Court has categorically directed that each case has to be looked into by applying independent mind by the District Education Officer. Therefore, for such reason we are of the opinion that learned Service Tribunal was right in directing the District Education Officer to consider the cases of the respondents by conducting a regular inquiry. Since the order is just and proper and strictly in accordance with the order of this Court, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court.
' Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we see no substance in these petitions as such the same are dismissed and leave declined.