Find a Lawyer

, S. O. 15(3) (h)-Dismissal for misconduct-Charge of making false allegations against superior officers-Formal enquiry held-Charges proved- Nature of punish ment within discretion of Management-Infliction of lesser punishment on others charged with same misconduct, held, no ground for challenging punishment of dismissal.

It appears that one, Abdul Hakim, son of Abdul Qadir, was appointed as a Dispensor on 11th October 1967, in the Khyber Tobacco Co. Ltd. Mardan and so was his brother, Abdul Hakim on 6th Jun 1968, both on three months' probation and after completing their probationery period, they both were confirmed. On 19th December 1971, it appears, the two brothers, alongwith Sahibzada Bacha sad 13ashir Khan, the other taro Compounders In the same Factory, submitted a joint application (copy Exh. P. A.) to the General Manager, making some allega tions against the integrity of the Personnel Officer and Vie Department Supervisor (Welfare), whereupon they were issued a show-cause notice on 25th February 1971, to explain, why action should not be taken against them under Standing Order 15 (3) (h) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employ ment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. A copy of the show cause notice is Eth. R. W. 1/2. They subsequently submitted a written explanation but as their explanation was not found satisfactory, they were all charge-sheeted for making false allegations against the two Officers and Mr. Muhammad Aslam Khan, Assistant Factory Manager as appointed as an inquiry officer. Copy of the charge-sheet is Exh. R. W. 3/A. Toe Enquiry Officer held the enquiry, and later submitted a report to the General Manager on 26th March 1971. A copy of this report is Exh. R. W. 1/1. Thereafter the two brothers were dismissed on the basis of this enquiry on 8th April 1971. Subsequently, it appears, the two brothers served a grievance notice on the Management but the notice was rejected. A copy of the Order in this behalf is Exh. R. W. 3/C. Abdur Rahim and Abiu1 Hakim latter submitted separate applications under section 34 of the industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to this Court against their dismissal, praying that they both may be re-instated on their original posts with effect from the date of their dismissal, with all the back date benefits and privileges.

2. These applications were contested by 'the respondent. As both the applications were similar in nature and involved the same questions of law and facts they were consolidated and the evidence was recorded in the Application No. 91 of 1971, submitted by Abdur Rahim. The other Application is No. 92 of 1971.

3. On behalf of the petitioners, one' of the petitioners, namely, Abdul Hakim (petitioner), appeared himself and produced Doctor Muhammad Jahangir Khan, Factory Medical officer of the Khyber Tobacco Company Ltd., Mardan (P. W. 1) and Bashir Khan (P. W. 2). The statement of the Doctor would merely show that he forwarded the joint application made by the two petitioners aid the other two Compounders, S3hibzada Bacha and Bashir Khan to the General Manager. The evidence of Bashir Khan (P. W. 2), is also of no avail to the petitioners because he seems to be an interested witness as his services were terminated by the respondent-Company in July 1971. A perusal of the statement of Abdul Hakim would, however, show that he and his brother were duly issued a show-cause notice, where after they were charge-sheeted, after which an enquiry was also held against them by Mr. Muhammad Aslam Khan in the presence of the petitioner, and subsequently, d-.fore they were dismissed, they were again issued a show-cause notice. The statement of this witness would farther show that after their dismissal they served a grievance notice on the Management and before their notices were rejected, they were summoned and personally heard by the General Manager to the circumstances there was absolutely no irregularity in the proceedings resulting in the dismissal of the two brothers.

4. As regards their joint application, which they made on 19th February 1971, snaking some allegations against the Integrity of the Personnel Officer and the Department Supervisor (Welfare), there is nothing on the record to indicate that theta allegations were true. This conduct of the two petitioners obviously amounted to an act, subversive of discipline, which was covered under clause (hl of subsection (31 of Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance. 198. The dismissal, could not, therefore, be said to be contrary to law. The mere fact that the two petitioner were dismissal while Sahibzada Bacha and Bashir Khan were allowed to get away with the forfeiture of only one increment on the same evidence, would not make any difference because it was in the discretion of the Management to award any punishment they liked in the, circumstances of the case It is possible that there were some extenuating circumstances in Vie cases of Sahibzada Bacha and Bashir Khan, which compelled the Management to award them the lesser punishment. Both the petitions are, therefore, liable to dismissal. I have consulted Mr. Shaida A. Qreshi (Member) and he agrees with me in this behalf. Accordingly I dismiss both the petitions. Parties are, however, allowed to bear their own costs.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.