Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. SL‑57 of 1984, decided on 17th April, 1984.

‑‑‑Disciplinary action‑‑Acquittal in criminal case‑‑No bar for take a departmental action if misconduct established.

‑‑‑Misconduct‑‑Bank employee‑‑Making some demands to Zonal Chief during working hours and when asked to attend to his duties and to see him (Zonal Chief) after taking time becoming insolent and insisting to be heard then and there‑‑Both actions, held, amounted to mis conduct‑‑Order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition against dismissal from service in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal‑ Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38.

‑‑‑ Disciplinary action for misconduct‑‑Quantum of punishment‑‑Discretion of employer‑‑Leniency in punishment shown to co‑accused having tendered apology, held, no ground to challenge dismissal from service by accused not even admitted his guilt though established.

Talat Farooq for Appellant.

Mian A. Rashid for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 11th April, 1984.

The appeal captioned above emerges from the decision dated 23‑1‑1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service.

2. The allegations against the appellant were that he alongwith five others went to the office of the Zonal Chief to press demands and when the latter asked all of them to return to their Khata and to discharge their duties, and may come after getting time from him, they all disobeyed him, insisted to hear them and assaulted and beat him, when he attempted to escape. Ch. Muhammad Rafiq, the Zonal Chief, gave full details of the incident in his statement made during the enquiry. The other two witnesses were outside the office and they could not see the whole incident, therefore, they did not give the details. Admittedly, during working hours the appellant and his companions had gone to the Zonal Chief, so the latter was justified in asking them to attend to their duties and to see him in connection with their demands after taking time from him. The appellant and his companions belonged to the same Khata. Obviously the work would suffer if six persons .at one and the same time abandon work. The appellant and his companions, therefore, should have obeyed the Zonal Chief. They could have seen him afterwards. In cross‑examination it was suggested that the Zonal Chief had threatened the General Secretary of the Union to teach him a lesson of founding the union. It is not believable that when six office holders and members of the union were in anger the Zonal Chief would have said so. It was suggested to the Zonal Chief in cross‑examination that the General Secretary of the union was wounded with paper cutter and fist blows. The suggestion was repelled back. This is not believable that in answer to the placing of demands beating was given. If at all blows were given, it could be in self‑defence. .

3. Acquittal in a criminal case is no bar' in taking departmental action if the misconduct is established. The Magistrate gave benefit of doubt and did not find that no incident took place. Rather the incident is admitted. Criminal charge laid against the appellant was different from the allegation of misconduct. The very act of disobeying the Zonal Chief, when .the latter asked him to attend to his duties and to see him after taking time, and becoming insolent amounted to misconduct. The appellant and his companions insisted that they should be heard; there an then. This too amounted to indiscipline and riotous behaviour. Even if it be said that the appellant and his companions did not use criminal force, what they did amounted to misconduct. No evidence defence was produced to rebut the prosecution evidence.

4. It has been argued that the use of objectionable language does not amount to misconduct. 1982 P L C 903 has been cited but in the said ruling it was held that using of objectionable language had not been established.

5. No doubt lenient view was taken while punishing the companion of the appellant but it has been rightly observed by the learned lower Court that it was the discretion of the employer. The reason was the others had apologized. So far as the appellant is concerned, h did not admit his guilt. He rather denied to have committed any mis conduct and added that if the Zonal Chief on account of being an officer had felt something, he, being a subordinate, was feeling sorry. This was not an unconditional pardon. Admission of guilt is necessary for seeking pardon. The charge was amply proved against‑the appellant and he was rightly dismissed from service and his grievance petition) rightly disallowed by the learned lower Court.

6. As a result, the appeal being without force is dismissed.

A. E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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