SHER BAHADUR Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB
Sher Bahadur, ex‑Teacher of Teshil Taunsa, District D.G. Khan, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against termination of his services vide order, dated 10‑11‑1984, maintained by order, dated 22‑12‑1984. He has impleaded the Government through District Education Officer, D.G. Khan, as respondent.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that orders, dated 10‑11‑1984 and 22‑12‑1984, passed by the District Education Officer, D.G. Khan, be set aside and appellant be reinstated in service with the direction that he may be paid pay for the period from 1‑6‑1977 to 30‑9‑1980.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was initially recruited Primary School, Ghulam Haider in Muzaffargarh District, vide District Inspector of Schools order, dated 31‑5‑1953.
The appellant's services were terminated in September, 1969, on account of wilful absence, insubordination and misconduct, vide order No. 1975, dated 10‑4‑1969. Despite appellant's running to several Courts of law for relief but the decision of the Department was upheld by the Civil Judge, dated 6‑4‑1972. The appellant after a lapse of two years got his fresh appointment as P.T.C. Teacher in Bahawalpur District w.e.f. 1‑9‑1971 at Government Middle School, Khalifa District Bahawalpur vide District Inspector of Schools order No. 5382‑85, dated 26‑7‑1971. The appellant requested for his transfer to D.G. Khan District and as such his inter‑Divisional transfer was ordered by the D.P.I. Punjab Lahore, vide order No. 502/81/9790/Admn‑I(2), dated 4‑4‑1981, and was posted at Government Primary School, Anwar Abad District D.G. Khan, vide his office order No. 3337/Adorn. 111, dated 12‑4‑1981. The appellant being an employee of District Cadre was transferred to Government Primary School Daulat Wala Markaz Vehoa Tehsil Taunsa District Dera Ghazi Khan, vide District Education Officer, D.G. Khan No. 1141/Adorn. III, dated 16‑2‑‑1982, in order to accommodate him near to Layyah. The appellant was found absent w.e.f. 6‑6‑1982 and even after Summer Vacation from his place of posting. The appellant was asked to explain his position with regard to his absence before taking disciplinary action against him, vide D.E.O., D.G. Khan No. 7154, dated 25‑9‑1982. However, the plea of the appellant was that in fact he was working in some other school, therefore, his absence from Daulatwala Markaz was immaterial. The plea of the appellant was taken into consideration, but it was found to be without any foundation, by the Headmaster, Government Middle School, Churkin, who held that appellant was will fully absent and also committed fraud in the preparation of attendance report. The appellant was served with a show cause notice vide office No. 524, dated 19‑1‑1983. The appellant requested for extension in time and was granted the same. The Enquiry Officer was appointed in his case who submitted his report vide his No. 47, dated 31‑3‑1983. After the said inquiry report was received, the appellant was served with a show‑cause notice on :30‑6‑1983, to appear before the District Education Officer D.G. Khan (Male), but on the request of the appellant, the date of personal hearing was extended till 31‑7‑1983. However, he submitted his explanation but in the meantime, he resorted to Civil Court against the said action of the respondent, but his appeal was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Layyah on 13‑2‑1984. After the dismissal of the said appeal, a notice was served on the appellant, on 12‑3‑‑1984. Again the appellant came forward with a plea that the time be extended and came up for personal hearing on the extended date and his statement was recorded. However, the appellant approached Commissioner, D.G. Khan, for redress against the said show‑cause notice and his request was acceded to and another Enquiry Officer of N.P.S.‑17 was appointed vide order, dated 4‑8‑1984. The appellant appeared before the said Enquiry Officer and came with a plea that Chief Secretary may be appointed as Enquiry Officer in his case, a plea which was rejected. The appellant was served for the seventh time, show‑cause notice even in the presence of his being personally heard on 7‑4‑1984. The appellant did not give any response to the same and as a last resort, the show‑cause notice was got published in the two Daily Newspapers, on 30‑10‑1984. As he did not appear, his earlier statement was taken into consideration alongwith the inquiry report against him and his services were terminated. Hence this appeal.
3. I have heard the appellant in person and had attended to his arguments in which he has pleaded that, neither he committed any fraud or forgery and has been victim of malice, therefore, all what has been done against him was due to act of malice and nothing else.
4. On the other hand learned Deputy District Attorney has submitted that the appellant was a hardened litigant, who has no other business but to indulge in litigation and has indicated that firstly he filed suit in the Court of Civil Judge, D.G. Khan, which was dismissed. He filed appeal before the High Court but the same was dismissed by the said Court. Then the appellant went before the Civil Judge, Layyah, which appeal was also dismissed on 13‑2‑1984. He has charged the appellant with insubordination, misconduct, wilful absence and fraud and has submitted that despite dismissal of his appeals/civil suits he is pressing for unfounded stand that he was victim of malice,
5. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and have carefully perused the record of this case and find that the argument of the appellant is baseless and the stand of the respondent is justified. The appellant was given ample chance to defend his case, but he failed to take notice of the same. The authority after taking into consideration of Enquiry report and earlier statement so given by him came to the correct conclusion that the appellant was guilty of insubordination, misconduct and wilful absence., The appellant has failed to rebut this justified finding, in any manner whatsoever and has also failed to prove malice against the respondent.
6. The result is I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is dismissed in limine.
A.A. Appeal dismissed.