DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, KASUR and others vs Miss JAMIL AKHTAR
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the District Education Officer, Kasur, against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 27-5-2003, which had accepted the respondent's appeal against her removal from service and set aside the removal order, granting her full back benefits. The core legal question revolved around the validity of the respondent's appointment as a PTC Teacher and whether subsequent removal of the verifying officer or alleged irregularities by authorities could vitiate her regular appointment. The Supreme Court held that pleas not raised before the Service Tribunal or supported by record could not be raised for the first time before this Court, and subsequent dismissal of the verifying officer did not warrant non-suiting the respondent. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused, affirming that findings of fact by the Service Tribunal based on verification by competent bodies and the Army Scrutiny Team must prevail in the absence of substantiated contrary pleadings.
- Can a new plea regarding the validity of an appointment be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court when it was not urged before the Service Tribunal?
- Does the subsequent removal from service of an officer who verified an appointment affect the legality of an employee's service appointment without supporting record?
- Whether the findings of fact recorded by the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding the regularity of a PTC Teacher appointment warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
' 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 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 levelled 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 this 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 C 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.
Cited by 1 case
- FAISAL PARACHA Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 2026 SCMR 1355