Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. BR‑769 of 1982/Pb., decided on 12th October, 1982.

Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑Grievance petition against dismissal from service for misconduct‑Record of domestic enquiry indicating statement of only complainant in support of charge and no other evidence ‑Solitary statement of complainant, held, not sufficient to prove charge and for extreme penalty of dismissal‑Dismissal order set aside and re‑instatement awarded by Appellate Tribunal.

Muhammad Aslam for Appellant.

Saleem Baig for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 9th October, 1983.

The titled appeal calls in question the decision, dated its December, 1982 delivered by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for his re‑ instatement in service was dismissed.

2. The appellant was a weighman at truck‑scale. The allegation against him was that he on 12th January, 1982 at about 2‑00 p. m. weighed two camels loaded with suger-cane showing excessive weight and thus caused loss to the mills. One Raja Muhammad Younas, Inspector, made the report. During the enquiry Raja Muhammad Younas was also examined. Besides him the witnesses examined by the prosecution. are Mr. Anwar‑ul‑Haq, Mr. Ghulam Muhammad and Mr. Muhammad Munsha. The duty on the camel‑scale was of Anwaral Haq and Muhammad Munsha. but according to the story of the prosecution, both were not present and they stated that when they came, they were told that the appellant had weighed the camels. This was also said that the appellant was not present at that time. Ghulam Muhammad said that he bad gone to Liaqatpur and thus did not know anything. It is thus clear that none of the witnesses except the Inspector, is alleged to have ‑seen the appellant present at the camel‑scale and weighing the camels. The weighment cards alleged to have been produced during the enquiry also are not on the record. Even the time of the incident was in the beginning given wrongly in the charge‑sheet as 7‑40 p. m. and when in reply ‑to the charge‑sheet the appellant said that his duty was upto 6 00 p. m. correction was made in the charge‑sheet.

3. The weighment cards were the only documentary evidence which could show what weight was entered in them. Since the appellant denied his signatures on them, they should have been compared with the admitted or specimen signatures during the enquiry. If they had been produced before the learned lower Court comparison would have been possible. The plea that the cards had been sent for payment is not sufficient. Since according to the prosecution, the weight given on cards was excessive, payment was not to be made according to the contents of the weighment cards but according to the certificate of the Inspector. Even if it is so said that eards were sent to the office for payment. they could be, after pay ment, brought back and attached to the enquiry file. Since payment is alleged to have been made on the cards, it means that the weight was not excessive. This is nobody's case that the weight was corrected on the cards. If the words had been produced, they would have shown if in/ reality the weight entered in them was excessive. In the absence of cards the solitary statement of the complainant was not sufficient to prove the case and to award extreme penalty of dismissal.

4. As upshot of the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court and the order of dismissal, direct the re‑instatement of the appellant in service. However, since the appellant made weighment without any authority, he is not entitled to back benefits.

A. E. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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