Find a Lawyer

Petition No. 9.4 of 1982, decided on 29th May, 1983.

-- Domestic enquiry -Conducted by same person who charge sheeted accused-Dismissal order also passed by same person All this, held, against cannons of justice-Dismissal order, in circumstances, set aside directing management to hold fresh inquiry by some person other than one who had already expressed his opinion and in case no inquiry held and final order passed within two months petitioner to be deemed to have been re-instated with full back benefits-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25-A.

Ch. Muhammad Ikram for Petitioner.

Khalid Mahmood Pasha for Respondent.

Anwar Hussain, employee of the Pioneer Steel Mills was ordered, on 1st October, 1980, to work with Mr. Abdul Aziz Clerk but he refused to carry out this order, abused and insulted his officer incharge Khawaja Muhammad Farooq who bad passed this order. He was, therefore, charge-sheeted (Exh. PA) and also suspended for four days: He submitted his reply (Exh. PB) wherein he denied the charge levelled against him. This reply was considered unsatisfactory by the Management and notice of enquiry (Exh. PC) was served upon the petitioner where he was directed to appear before Mr. Yahya Kamal, the Enquiry Officer on 7th October, 1980 at 9-30 a. m. The petitioner made an application wherein he raised certain objections upon the appointment of Mr. Yahya Kamal as the Enquiry Officer. This application was rejected vide Exh: PD and the petitioner was directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter the petitioner participated in the enquiry and the Enquiry Officer made a report Exh. PB wherein his finding was that the charges against the petitioner were proved, The second show-cause notice (Ex. PE) was issued against the petitioner to which he submitted his reply Exh. PF in which he again denied the allegations against him and caused certain repercussions upon the Enquiry Officer. This reply did not find favour with the Management and the petitioner was dismissed from service on 12th May, 1981 by order Exh. P. G. The petitioner served the grievance notice on 26th May, 1981 and then filed the present petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance challeng ing legality of the impugned order.

The petition was resisted by the Respondent Mills. It was contended in the written statement that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him and he was rightly found guilty by the Enquiry Officer. The impugned order was defended as legal and valid.

Both the parties produced oral and documentary evidence in support of their contentions. The impugned order is liable to be set aside for the simple reason that the petitioner was charge sheeted by Mr. Yahya Kamal, enquiry was held by Mr. Yahya Kamal and it was he who made the enquiry report against the petitioner which resulted in his dismissal, This was against all cannons of justice. Mr. Yahya Kamal could not act in all three capacities i.e. the person who charge-sheeted the petitioner, who held the enquiry and made a report against the petitioner and then dismissed him from service. It is obvious that Mr. Yahya Kamal while passing the impugned order by relying upon his own finding was not acting independently. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and reinstate the petitioner in service from the day he reports himself for duty. The Management shall hold afresh enquiry into the guilt of the accused by appointing a different Enquiry Officer and then pass afresh order in accordance with law. Since Mr. Yahya Kamal has already expressed his opinion, therefore, some other Enquiry Officer shall be appointed and the petitioner shall be informed in writing about the afresh appointee. The petitioner shall appear before the Enquiry Officer and he shall be given ample opportunity to produce evidence to defend himself. The enquiry shall be completed within two months and the question of back benefits shall depend upon the result of enquiry. 1f no final order is passed within two months the petitioner shall be deemed to have been reinstated with full back benefits. The petition is accepted to this extent only, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

A. E. Petition 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.