SADAF MUBEEN Versus GENERAL MANAGER TEVTA

ORDER

JAWAD HASSAN, J.--- Through the instant petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the "Constitution"), the Petitioner has assailed the orders dated 21.08.2013 whereby she was terminated from service and order dated 23.06.2015 whereby her Appeal was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner was Principal (BS-17) at Government Vocational Training Institute (W), Chiniot, District Jhang. In pursuance of a complaint an inquiry was conducted against the Petitioner and Respondent No.4 wherein the Petitioner was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer, consequently, she was reinstated into service vide order dated 30.07.2012. But subsequently, the Petitioner was again placed under suspension on initiation of de novo inquiry proceedings under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 (the "Act"). After concluding de novo inquiry, the Petitioner was subjected to major penalty of removal from service vide the impugned order dated 21.08.2013. The Petitioner filed Appeal against her removal from service order which was declined on 23.06.2015. Subsequently, the Appeal filed by the Petitioner before the Punjab Service Tribunal was withdrawn. Hence, the instant petition.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner inter alia submitted that the impugned orders are illegal and arbitrary; that the Petitioner was exonerated in the first inquiry by the competent authority and there is no provision of de novo inquiry under the Act; that in the inquiry proceedings no solid proof has been provided by the Respondent No.4 against the Petitioner; that neither the cheque was issued by the Petitioner nor she signed on the same, as such the same was bogus; that there is nothing on record against the Petitioner that she received kickback of Rs.300,000/- from two persons for securing their job . As such, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

4. In pursuance of the orders of this Court, the Respondents submitted report and parawise comments denying all the allegations levelled in the Petition and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that the de novo inquiry was initiated in pursuance of the orders passed in W.P. No.5897/2012 filed by the Petitioner; that the major penalty of removal from service was awarded to the Petitioner by the competent authority after fulfilling all the formalities and evidence on record; that the Petitioner was removed from service on the basis of her misconduct and misuse of authority; that on her own complaint before the Anti-Corruption, the decision was against her; that serious allegation of bribe of Rs.300,000/- was levelled against the Petitioner.

6. I have heard the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. From the perusal of record it reveals that on the serious allegation of receiving illegal gratification of Rs.300,000/- from two person for securing their job, the competent authority ordered for de novo inquiry against the Petitioner. In the de novo inquiry the Petitioner was found involved and she was awarded major penalty of removal from service on the basis of being found guilty of misconduct and committing fraud vide the impugned order dated 21.08.2013. The Petitioner filed Appeal against the impugned order dated 21.08.2013 which was declined vide order dated 23.06.2015 by the Appellate Authority. The bare examination of the order dated 23.06.2015, it reveals that the Petitioner was afforded personal hearing and was heard at length by the Appellate Authority and observed that the Petitioner received bribe of Rs.300,000/- from two persons to secure their job. It further reveals that the allegation of the Petitioner that the guaranteed cheque contained her bogus signatures has been proved false as the decision of the Anti-corruption and report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore negate her stance. The Anti-corruption Court, vide its decision dated 03.10.2013 has observed as under:

"The complainant lady herself issued the cheque and handed over to the alleged co-accused value in Rs.300,000/- and the same was found original."

8. Furthermore, the said cheque was sent to the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore for verification of Petitioner's signatures. The report issued by the said Agency also negatives the stance of the Petitioner by observing as under:

"Questioned signature on the questioned cheque No.B174993 dated 01.10.2011 is done by Mrs. Sadaf Mubeen. Moreover, Mrs. Sadaf Mubeen is the author of questioned signatures on questioned cheque."

9. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has failed to negate the above said facts by cogent and confidence inspiring evidence. Nothing has been brought on record to contest the said facts by the Petitioner.

10. From the above situation an inference can safely be drawn that the Petitioner has rightly been terminated from service on proving severe allegations. The Petitioner was a public servant and had lost her credibility, therefore, cannot be allowed to be holder of Office of an Organization.

11. As a sequel, the instant petition has no force, hence the same is dismissed accordingly.

ZC/S-3/L Petition dismissed.