In a significant decision, the Punjab Service Tribunal has allowed the service appeal of Mr. Muhammad Saleem (PST, GPS 341 GB, Toba Tek Singh), setting aside the orders of removal from service passed by the competent authority and later upheld in departmental appeal.

The appellant had served in the Education Department for more than 33 years, having been appointed after due scrutiny by the Selection Committee. Despite his long and satisfactory service record, he was proceeded against under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability (PEEDA) Act, 2006 on the following charges:

• Suspicious verification of matriculation certificate
• Hampering inquiry proceedings
• Gross misconduct

An inquiry was held, and while the Inquiry Officer had recommended the penalty of compulsory retirement, the competent authority imposed the harsh punishment of removal from service vide order dated 04.03.2023. His departmental appeal was also rejected on 01.06.2024, prompting him to approach the Tribunal under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 read with Section 19 of the PEEDA Act, 2006.

Arguments of the Appellant

The learned counsel for the appellant, Allah Nawaz Khosa Advocate, advanced detailed and forceful submissions:

1. No proof of bogus certificate:
   The Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha, never declared the matric certificate of the appellant as fake. At best, it had only pointed out certain mismatches in particulars, which could have been clarified by summoning original record and witnesses.
2. Violation of fair trial:
   The so-called “regular inquiry” was nothing more than a paper exercise, conducted without affording cross-examination and other safeguards required under the PEEDA Act and Article 10-A of the Constitution.
3. Disproportionate penalty:
   The Inquiry Officer had recommended compulsory retirement, but the authority, without assigning any judicial reasoning, awarded the extreme penalty of removal. This was against the principles settled in 2013 PLC (C.S) 801 and 2014 SCMR 147.
4. Past and closed transaction:
   The appellant’s appointment was made transparently, duly confirmed, and never questioned for over three decades. Selective action against him without proceeding against the Selection Committee was discriminatory. Reliance was placed on 2011 PLC (C.S) 1296 and 2006 SCMR 678.

Court’s Findings

After hearing arguments and examining the record, the Tribunal held:

• The Board never declared the matriculation certificate as bogus.
• The Inquiry Officer himself acknowledged this and recommended compulsory retirement, yet the competent authority imposed removal without justification.
• The appellant’s long service of 33 years, coupled with departmental silence for decades, entitled him to protection under the doctrine of past and closed transaction.
• The inquiry proceedings were defective, vague, and contrary to mandatory provisions of PEEDA Act, 2006. No proper opportunity of defense was afforded.
• The denial of cross-examination and reliance merely on correspondence amounted to violation of Article 10-A (Right to Fair Trial).

Tribunal’s Decision

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned orders, and directed:

• The intervening period from removal till superannuation shall be treated as leave of the kind due.
• Since the appellant had already retired on 10.10.2023, the department must release his full pensionary benefits within 15 days.

Appreciation of Counsel

The case highlights the importance of fair trial safeguards in disciplinary proceedings and the principle of past and closed transaction protecting employees after decades of service.

Special acknowledgment is due to Allah Nawaz Khosa Advocate, counsel for the appellant, whose rigorous legal arguments, reliance on authoritative precedents, and deep commitment to justice played a decisive role in securing relief for the appellant. His advocacy ensured that not only was an unjust order set aside, but also the constitutional guarantee of fair trial was reaffirmed.

✅ This judgment stands as a reminder that arbitrary and disproportionate penalties cannot withstand judicial scrutiny, and employees’ rights earned through decades of service cannot be taken away without due process.