Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. BR‑89 of 1984, decided on 7th April, 1984.

‑‑‑S. Os. 15 (1) (ii) (a) & 15 (3)‑Misconduct‑Allegation of operating a machine against departmental instructions ‑‑ Evidence indicating that accused operated machine on asking of an Officer Such evidence, held, sufficient to exonerate accused‑Allegation, further held, amounting to disregard of rules or orders and not misconduct of disobedience of an order of a Superior‑Order of Labour Court setting aside dismissal order and awarding reinstate ment with back benefits, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal‑industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3).

Faiz‑ur‑Rehman for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 2nd April, 1984.

The appeal titled above emerges from the decision, dated 6th February, 1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur, directing the re‑instatement of the respondent in service with all back benefits.

2. The respondent was dismissed from service on the allegation that he had against the departmental instructions operated machine K‑8 from 8164 to 8171 meters and broke the seal. The respondent denied the charge in reply to the charge‑sheet. He was again asked to give reply which was given but the contention of the respondent was that it was made on the dictation of his immediate officer. He in that reply said that be on the asking of Forest Officer made the reply. This reply too was not accepted and an enquiry was held which ultimately culminated in the dismissal of the respondent. In evidence log book was produced which contained an entry by the operator that be had on the asking of an officer operated the machine from 8164 to 8179 meters. This entry was sufficient to exonerate the respondent. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the operator made a bogus entry and that he is being proceeded against. This is not enough. If the operator was to be proceeded against, the decision of the Enquiry Officer against the respondent' should have been deferred. It has also been argued that the entry is interpolated. I have carefully examined the log book. The entry is clear. The figures 8164 to 8171 are clearly written although in the other column there is a correction. No misconduct was established. Even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that the respondent had in reality operated the machine, it amounted to disobeying the departmental instructions and not an. order of a superior. So, the act falls under Standing Order 15 (1) (t) (a), which does not amount to misconduct. The respondent was thus rightly directed to be re‑instated in service.

3. As a result, the appeal having no force is dismissed in limine.

A. E. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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