No.DC/DLO/38
15-January-2025
Office Of The Deputy Commissioner, Lahore
Deputy Commissioner Lahore Reinstates Senior Teachers Following PEEDA Act Review:
The Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore, has issued a landmark decision in departmental appeals filed by three appellants: Rana Liaqat Ali, Syed Mudassar Hussain, and Kashif Shahzad Chaudhary, all former Senior Subject Teachers (SST) from Lahore-based government schools. These appeals were lodged against their removal orders issued by the Chief Executive Officer, District Education Authority, Lahore, on allegations of misconduct, willful absence from duty, and participation in protest activities against government policies. The Deputy Commissioner carefully reviewed the case under the provisions of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline, and Accountability (PEEDA) Act, 2006.
The appellants argued that their removal was unjust, citing fundamental constitutional rights such as freedom of assembly, speech, and association, as enshrined in Articles 16, 17, and 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan. They further provided evidence that they were on approved casual leave during the alleged dates and denied participating in any protests. Conversely, the office representative of the CEO, District Education Authority, defended the removal orders, citing policy guidelines that prohibit government employees from publicly opposing government policies.
After a thorough examination of the arguments, evidence, and procedural adherence under the PEEDA Act, the Deputy Commissioner ruled in favor of the appellants. The decision not only restores the services of the appellants effective from the date of their removal but also underscores the importance of due process in administrative actions, reaffirming employee rights against unjustified punitive measures. Notification Describes;
OFFICE OF THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
LAHORE
No.DC/DLO/38
Dated: 15/01/2025
ORDER
WHEREAS, this consolidated order has been passed in the departmental appeals filed by Rana Liaqat Ali (Ex-SST), Government High School Bandiyan Wala, Chungi Amer Sadhu, Lahore (Cell No. 0333-4231181), Syed Mudassar Hussain {Ex-SST (IT]}, Government Islamia High School, Sanat Nagar, Lahore (Cell No. 0300-4338722), and Kashif Shahzad Chudhary {Ex-SST (IT)}. Government Muslim High School, No. 2, Civil Lines, Lahore (Cell No. 0300-9413816), against Order Nos. 1216/A-V. No. 1217/A-V. and No. 1218/A-V dated 08-10-2024, respectively, passed by the Chief Executive Officer, District Education Authority, Lahore.
WHEREAS, for the decision of the appeal, appellants namely Rana Liaqat Ali, Syed Mudassar Hussain, and Kashif Shahzad Chaudhary, clong with the office representative of the Chief Executive Officer, District Education Authority, Lahore, were called for personal hearings on 29-11-2024. 20-12-2024, and 14-01-2025 at 11:00 am.
WHEREAS, the appellants contended that the Chief Executive Officer, District Education Authority, Lahore, issued show cause-cum-personal hearing notices under Section 7 read with Section 7(1)(a) of the PEEDA Act, 2006, on 19-09-2024 regarding willful absence from duty and protest/agitation against the government. The appellants duly submitted their replies to the show cause notices, denying the allegations leveled therein. They provided evidence of approved casual leave sanctioned by the competent authority. However, no inquiry officer was appointed, no regular inquiry was conducted, nor was there any formal dispensation with inquiry proceedings as per the PEEDA Act, 2006.
The appellants further contended that the fundamental rights of freedom of assembly (Article-16), freedom of association (Article-17), and freedom of speech (Article-19) guaranteed by the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, were not considered. They argued that raising awareness about the drawbacks of government policies, such as the privatization of government schools, is within their rights and does not constitute misconduct. They claimed victimization on political grounds and requested that the impugned orders be set aside and their services reinstated from the date of removal.
4.           WHEREAS, the office representative of the Chief Executive Officer, District Education Authority, Lahore, argued that the appellants committed misconduct by engaging in agitation/protest against government policy and willfully absenting themselves from duty. The competent authority issued show cause notices based on Notification No. F.No.14/04/2621-D-Il dated 25-08-2021 and Memorandum No. F.NO.14/3/2022-D-Il dated 02-09-2024, issued by the Cabinet Secretariat Establishment Division. These documents bar government servants from expressing views against government policy through media, including social media platforms, or spreading unauthentic and misleading information. The office representative emphasized that the impugned orders were lawful and urged that the appeals be dismissed.
5.           AND WHEREAS, arguments and comments from both sides were heard, and the record perused. It was evident that the appellants were on approved leave on the alleged dates. The competent authority failed to provide cogent evidence of their Involvement in agitation/protest against government policy. Furthermore, the competent authority did not justify dispensing with regular Inquiry proceedings as required under the PEEDA Act, 2006.
6.           NOW, THEREFORE, based on the aforementioned facts, I, Syed Musa Raza, Deputy Commissioner, Lahore, have reached the considered opinion that the competent authority erred in passing the impugned orders. After reviewing the available record under Section 4(1)(b)(v) of the Punjab Employees Efficiency. Discipline, and Accountability Act, 2006 the impugned orders are hereby set aside, and the appellants’ services are restored effective from the date of their removal. Accordingly, the appeals stand allowed.
Deputy Commissioner, Lahore/
Administrator, District Education Authority
Lahore
Certified that the order in hand is consisted upon 3 pages and also dictated by me.
Conclusion:
This decision by the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore, serves as a critical example of upholding administrative fairness and constitutional rights within the public sector. By carefully scrutinizing the allegations and procedural lapses in the issuance of the removal orders, the ruling highlights the importance of adhering to the legal framework outlined in the PEEDA Act, 2006, especially regarding inquiries and evidence-based decision-making.
The restoration of services for the appellants reinforces the principle that government employees are entitled to procedural justice, even when accused of activities perceived to be contrary to governmental policies. The ruling also acknowledges the balance between respecting constitutional freedoms—such as speech and assembly—and maintaining professional discipline within the public service framework.
This decision is not just a victory for the appellants but also a precedent for ensuring accountability and transparency in administrative proceedings. It emphasizes that allegations must be substantiated with credible evidence and processed through proper legal channels. As the appellants resume their duties, this case underscores the necessity of respecting employee rights while maintaining the integrity and policies of public institutions.
For more information, clarification or any other question feel free to join our WhatsApp Group. We are a supportive community where members are committed to assisting one another.
