Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. FD‑81 of 1930EPb., decided on 7th September, 1982.
‑‑ S. O. 15(4)‑Service of enquiry notice‑Denial of‑In enquiry alleged notice server deposing to have served enquiry notice but not examined in lower Court‑Employee challenging very ex parte proceedings and categorically denying service of enquiry notice. Notice not put to him in cross‑examination‑Held, his statement that no enquiry notice served, went un-controverted and should have been accepted by lower Court.
Nazir Ahmad Naz for Appellant.
In this appeal the decision dated 30th January, 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service was dismissed.
2. The allegation against the appellant was that he had issued tickets to the passengers from the students book. The case of the appellant is that instead of issuing regular RPT book, he was issued students book, therefore, he was compelled to issue tickets from the said book There is no allegation that he had charged full fare from the passengers but entered half fare in the counterfoils. So no charge of dishonesty or misappropriation.
3. The other thing is that there was no justification for making ex parte enquiry as service of enquiry notice does not stand proved. Rehmat Ali, Clerk, who is alleged to have served the enquiry notice Exb. D. 1 was not examined before the learned lower Court. He was no doubt examined in the enquiry and said that he had delivered the notice to the appellant but this was not enough when the appellant was challeng ing the very ex parte proceedings. The appellant categorically denied the service of enquiry notice but despite of it, notice Exh. D. 1 was not A put to him in cross‑examination and he was not required about the signatures purported to be appearing on the document. His statement that no enquiry notice was served, therefore, went uncontroverted and should have been accepted by the learned lower Court.
4. As upshot of the discussion made above, the appeal is accepted and the appellant directed to be reinstated in service. However, he is not allowed back benefits in the circumstances of the case.
K. M. A. Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer