Find a Lawyer

Petition No. 907 of 1976, decided on 2'st August 1976.

(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) --

-----S. O. 15-Misconduct-Disobedience-Order, in order to be obeyed, must be reasonable-Conductor directed to do work of Chaprasi Not a reasonable order-Disobedience of such order-Not a mis conduct.

---Dismissal for misconduct-Domestic enquiry-Charge framed not based upon initial report-Enquiry officer finding workman guilty of charges not mentioned in charge-sheet-Dismissing authority while passing order considering other misconducts also not mentioned in charge-sheet-Enquiry in circumstances held, fake and perverse and dismissal order not sustainable.

Saad Ullah Mumtaz for Petitioner.

Mehboob Perwaiz and 1drees Siddique for Respondents.

Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that petitioner was a Conductor. It is alleged by the petitioner that on 11-6-75 .at about 4-30 p. m. when he was not on his duty he was asked to call for D. S. by Mirza Muhammad Hussain and he refused to do so, This is exactly the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner. Report on which this charge-sheet is based is Exh. P-2 on the file, and it has stated by Mirza Muhammad Hussain that he directed the Conductor to go to D. S. Cantt. to appear Wore the undersigned, but he refused flatly in the presence of the Traffic Manager.

He was charge-sheeted and an inquiry was held against him. In the inquiry report be was held guilty on other charges also for which he was neither charge -sheeted. Inquiry Officer's recommendation was that his increment should be withheld, but contrary to this recommendation he was dismissed. In the dismissal order District Manager came to the conclusion that petitioner should he dismissed keeping in consideration 15 other disciplinary cases against the petitioner. Again petitioner committed misconduct on 11-5-75. Charge sheet was given to him on 1-9-75. Inquiry was completed against him on 25-12-75. He was given a show-cause notice on 6-1-76. Order of dismissal was passed against him on 5-4-76.

In the first place this is admitted position of the parties that petitioner was not on duty. Even if he was on duty then it is never the duty of the Conduc tor to act as Chaprasi. Order was not reasonable. In the second place charge it was not based on the report. Charge is different and report is quite different.

In the third place Enquiry Officer found him guilty also on a charge which was never the basis of the charge-sheet. Again the dismissing authority considered other misconducts which were never the bases of the charge. L In the fourth place every step in the inquiry from the start to the end was taken haphazardly after about every 3 months, Petitioner was sufficiently harassed.

In that view of the matter I found that inquiry against the petitioner was fake and perverse. His dismissal order is therefore set aside and he is directed to be re-instated with full back wages.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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