DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, KASUR and others vs Miss JAMIL AKHTAR
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had set aside the removal of the respondent from her position as a PTC Teacher. The core legal question was whether the respondent's removal from service was justified, given that her appointment had been verified as regular by an Army Scrutiny Team and allegations suggested the removal was motivated by the personal vendetta of a departmental official, Shamshad Ali, rather than legitimate administrative grounds. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that the petitioners failed to raise their arguments regarding the alleged irregularity of the appointment before the Service Tribunal. Furthermore, the Court held that the subsequent removal of the appointing officer could not be used to retroactively invalidate the respondent's appointment, especially when such evidence was not presented before the lower forum. The Court affirmed the principle that new pleas cannot be raised for the first time in appeal and that administrative actions must be based on valid, timely, and properly pleaded grounds rather than unsubstantiated or belated claims.
- Can a petitioner raise a new plea regarding the validity of an appointment for the first time during a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
- Does the subsequent removal of an appointing officer automatically invalidate the appointments made by them?
- Is a finding of fact by a Service Tribunal regarding the motivation behind an employee's removal subject to interference if the department failed to raise relevant objections before the Tribunal?
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 27-5-2003 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent against her removal from service has been accepted. Concluding paragraph of the impugned judgment for convenience is reproduced hereinbelow : "(5) After hearing the arguments and perusal of record it clearly reflects that appellant was appointed as PTC Teacher properly as certified by the Deputy District Education Officer. If at all there was some irregularity then Deputy District Officer, Chunian should have been held for it. Her appointment was found regular by the Army Scrutiny Team. After this verification what is left is plea of the appellant that she had been punished for .Not surrendering before the ill-motives of Shamshad Ali, Assistant. What has been discussed the appellant has been punished because of the ill-motives of said Shamshad Ali who has not been questioned by the Department in spite of facts that appellant had levelled allegations of official corrupt, bribe and moral turpitude against him. Resultantly appeal is accepted. The impugned order of removal from service dated 17-10-2002 is set aside. She is allowed full benefits of service i,e, pay and allowances for the said period.
(6) Copy of the judgment be sent to Secretary Education to hold a proper enquiry against Shamshad Ali, Assistant of Kasur District in the light of the serious allegation leveled against him."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondent was not appointed by the Recruitment Committee but on the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner. It may be noted that such plea has not been taken before the Service Tribunal nor the letter on the basis of which the Deputy Commissioner recommended her appointment was mentioned in the parawise comments. Therefore, for the first time this argument can neither be considered nor permitted to raise at the stage. He, however, stated that the Deputy District Education Officer who had appointed the respondent had also been removed from service on the ground of making false statement. It may be noted that the respondent was removed from service on 17-10-2002 whereas the said removal order the Service Tribunal passed the impugned judgment on 27-5-2003 and the Deputy District Education Officer was removed from service allegedly on 27-12-2003. However, no document in this behalf has been placed on the available record. Therefore, in our opinion dismissal of the Deputy District Education Officer who verified the appointment of the respondent as correct cannot be considered as circumstance to non-suit the respondent at this belated stage particularly when no such plea was taken before the Service Tribunal. No other point has been urged by the learned counsel for petitioners.
3. For the reasons stated hereinabove this petition is dismissed and leave refused. Leave to appeal refused.