Stereo. H C J D A 38.

Judgment Sheet
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT
BAHAWALPUR BENCH BAHAWALPUR
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Writ Petition No.266/2013/BWP

(Mst. Shahnaz Akhtar Vs. DEO etc.)

JUDGMENT
Date of Hearing 09.05.2013
Petitioner by: Mr. Jamshaid Akhtar Khokhar, Advocate.
State by: Mr. Saeed Ahmed Chaudhry, Assistant Advocate General.
Muhammad Sabir, Superintendent DEO (Women),
Bahawalnagar.

Atir Mahmood, J.: Through this consolidated judgment, I intend

to dispose of Writ Petition No.266/2013/BWP and Writ Petition
No.224/2013/BWP as common questions of law and fact are involved
therein.

2. Facts of both the cases are the same. The petitioners were
appointed as Senior Elementary School Educator (SESE) in BPS-14 vide
order dated 30.03.2007 on contract basis initially for a period of five
years which was extended for a further period of five years and
performed their duties till 31.12.2012 when respondent No.1 vide order
dated 31.12.2012 terminated their services on the allegation that their
appointment letters were fake which order has been impugned in these
writ petitions.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the

petitioners were appointed through bogus appointment letters, it was
necessary for the respondents to hold a proper inquiry to look into the
allegation and then reach a just and fair conclusion that the appointment
of the petitioners are fake or otherwise. He admits that the petitioners
were appointed through fake appointment letters but asserts that their
services could not be terminated without holding a proper inquiry. In
support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the law laid
W.P. No.266/2013/BWP 2

down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in cases titled

“Executive District Officer (Edu), Rawalpindi and others Vs. Mst.
Rizwana Kausar and 4 others (2011 SCMR 1581),” “The Secretary,
Government of the Punjab, through Secretary, Health Department,
Lahore and others Vs. Riaz-ul-Haq (1997 SCMR 1552)” and “Secretary
to Government of NWFP Zakat/Social Welfare Department, Peshawar
and another Vs. Saadullah Khan (1996 SCMR 413).” He prays that both
the writ petitions in hand be allowed and the petitioners be re-instated
into service while declaring the impugned termination letter dated
31.12.2012 illegal and unlawful.

4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer submits that neither any
advertisement was made for the posts in question nor the petitioners
submitted applications for their appointment against the posts of SESE.
He avers that the petitioners managed the appointment letters in their
favour in connivance with the departmental authorities through
fraudulent means and in this way, usurped the rights of lawful
prospective candidates of these posts. He argues that the offer letter
allegedly issued by Mst. Shahida Hafeez, Ex-DEO(W-EE),
Bahawalnagar was under the fake signatures. He contends that no fraud
committed by any person can be protected by the courts as it will
encourage others to do the same rather than stopping them from using
unfair means. He requests that this writ petition being devoid of any
force be dismissed.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. It appears from the record that the factum of appointment of the

petitioners through fraudulent means came into the knowledge of
concerned authorities when a complaint was filed by one Munawar
Hussain s/o Barkat Ali before the Director Anti-Corruption, Bahawalpur
Division, Bahawalpur asserting that the appointment of the petitioners
was result of bogus and fake orders. A fact finding report was obtained
by the departmental authorities. After considering the fact finding report,
the competent authority vide order dated 01.11.2012 dispensed with the
W.P. No.266/2013/BWP 3

requirement of further inquiry and directed the petitioners to appear

before him for the purpose of personal hearing which was duly given to
them whereafter the impugned order was passed. Relevant paragraph of
the impugned order is as under:

“The appointment of Educators of various categories were made

school specific according to the recruitment policy 2006-07.
Neither the vacancy of SESE (Arts) BS-14 of Govt. Girls E/S
199/8-R Tehsil Fortabbas was advertised nor the said so called
Educator submitted her application for appointment as SESE
(Arts) in BS 14 on contract basis. The offer letter has been shown
to be issued under the fake signature of Mst. Shahida Hafeez EX-
DEO (W-EE) Bahawalnagar. The entry of the dispatch register is
also fabricated which is evident that the dispatch register was
closed at serial No.1250 on 30.03.2007 whereas the dispatch
No.1432-34 has been shown in the offer letter dated 30.03.2007.
Thus the forgery rises to the surface of the dispatch register as
well as relevant record of this office.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has nowhere, either in writ

petition or his arguments, asserted that the appointment orders were
genuine and issued by the competent authority rather he has frankly
admitted before this Court that the appointment orders were bogus and
fake.

8. In the cases referred to by learned counsel for the petitioners, there

is a fault on the part of the departmental authorities and not on that of the
employees but in this case, the fault is admittedly on the part of the
employees. This particular feature distinguishes the instant case from the
cases referred to by learned counsel for the petitioners. I am guided by
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled
“Executive District Officer (Education), Rawalpindi Vs. Muhammad
Younas (2007 SCMR 1835)”. Relevant portion is as under:

“It is a settled law that when the basic order is without lawful
authority then the superstructure shall have to fall on the ground
W.P. No.266/2013/BWP 4

automatically as law laid down by this Court in Yousaf Ali’s case

PLD 1958 SC 104. It is also a settled law that where the order of
appointment was secured by fraud and misrepresentation then
principle of locus poenitentiae is not attracted as law laid down
by this Court in Jalal-ud-Din’s case PLD 1992 SC 207.”

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also not been able to rebut
the contentions of learned Law Officer that the appointment letters
through which the petitioners were inducted in service were fake ones
being prepared with fictitious signatures of the appointing authority.

10. In view of the above, both the writ petitions in hand are devoid of
any merit, hence dismissed.

(ATIR MAHMOOD)
Judge

Approved for reporting.

Judge
Akram*