MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and 37 others vs DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION and others

' RIAZ KAYANI (CHAIRMAN).---We intend to dispose of all the above-cited (39) appeals, through this single judgment, as common questions of fact and law are involved.

2. Suffice to say that appellants were appointed as PTC teachers in the year 1996 in Sheikhupura District. They served for a number of years and they were removed from service on the ground that their names were not included in the merit list prepared by the District Recruitment Committee and they were appointed on the basis of their political clout. In some cases their appeals were rejected on the ground that the High Court directed that those who were not appointed on merit should be removed from service and in some cases the appellants were not responded to within the statutory period of 90 days' therefore, resort was made to the Service Tribunal through appeals.

The impugned orders passed by respondent No,2 are respectively dated 25-2-1999, 6-3-1999, 9-3- 1999 and 15-4-1999 removing the appellants from service in a rolled up manner.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that appellants had requisite qualifications and they had worked for a number of years with satisfaction without there being any complaint from any quarter whatsoever. Their abrupt removal from service without any show-cause notice having been served upon them and no opportunity of hearing having been extended, violated not only the rules laid down in the Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1975, but also trampled the rights given to them under the principles of natural justice. On the other hand, learned District Attorney stated that no appointments for District Sheikhupura of PTC teachers were made which itself made it evident that the appointments were sought through back door by exerting political pressure or securing appointment orders- through underhand means conniving with Deputy District Education Officer: 4.We have heard the arguments at length and also have perused to record.

5. Orders of removal no doubt, mentioned about the appointment of an Enquiry Officer, holding of enquiry and hearing by the authorized officer, but after our queries to the departmental representative present with record, we are convinced in our minds that the assertions in the orders of removal are by way of cyclostyled orders signed in a mechanical manner. The departmental representative could not even convince us that a proper show-cause notice was issued to the appellants and they were afforded an opportunity of hearing before the District Education Officer who passed the impugned orders. As a matter of fact why t happened was that illegal appointments attracted the notice of the Hon'ble High Court, who directed the Education Authorities to sort out the cases of illegal and irregular appointments made otherwise than on merits. The orders of the High Court necessarily meant that those who were intended to be proceeded against should have been served with a show-cause notice highlighting the allegations for proceeding against them and thereafter to be provided with a chance to explain their position before the Authority. This exercise was not at all undertaken, rather method of pick and choose was resorted to, which is in utter violation of the rules of natural justice and cannot be countenanced.

The very format of the removal orders which run into half page is a cyclostyled one and reason of removal stated to be "bogus" appointment in all the cases. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in various appeals maintained that all of them possessed requisite qualifications required to the posts they were appointed and after serving the Department for a number of years, they cannot be thrown out in a slipshod and perfunctory manner. On the contrary, their appointment letters fairly indicate that they were appointed by the District Recruitment Committee. Now the question whether the contents of the appointment letter are correct or were obtained in connivance with the Deputy District Education Officer or by putting pressure on the Appointing Authority through political clout is a matter which has to be resolved through a regular enquiry. Having worked for a number of years without any complaint vests the appellants with certain rights which at least extend to a show-cause notice and an opportunity ofhearing before the Authority. We are fortified in our observations by a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in 2001 SCM R 1128 that appointments terminated without a show-cause notice and without providing an opportunity of hearing in rolled up manner cannot be sustained and were ultimately set aside with the direction to the Authority to hold a de novo enquiry. We in respectful agreement with the aforesaid dictum are bound under the provisions of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan to follow the same. Resultantly, all the appeals succeed, the orders, of removal of the appellants passed by the District Education Officer concerned and the decision, if any, made in the appeals declining to interfere with the order of the Authority, are set aside, appellants are reinstated in service. However, the intervening period, between their removal and reinstatement, shall be treated as leave of the kind due. We direct the Authority to launch proceedings afresh by issuing a show-cause notice giving in detail the grounds initiating the proceedings against, seeking replies, holding a regular enquiry, allowing the prosecution to lead evidence in support of the charges and providing an opportunity, to the appellants/accused to give defence, if they so desire, and thereafter to dispose each and every case on merit through a speaking order. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.