Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Appeal No. GA‑151 of 1985, decided on 16th October, 1985.
‑‑‑S.O. 15(4)‑‑Enquiry‑‑Enquiry Officer appointed before service of charge‑sheet‑‑Action violative of S.O. 15(4).
‑‑‑ Misconduct‑‑Refusal to accept service of notice calling for explanation‑‑Does not amount to misconduct.
Sardar Muhammad Adeeb for Appellant.
Ch. Manzoor Ahmad for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 8th October, 1985.
The decision, dated 16‑2‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service was dismissed.
2. The allegation for which the services of the appellant were terminated was that he had refused to receive the notice by which his explanation was called. But the learned lower Court has observed that the allegation was of not obeying the transfer order. The allegation that the appellant refused to receive notice was not proved. The person who is alleged to have served the notice and made report that the appellant had refused to accept the same was not examined. So the allegation of refusal to accept the service of notice does not stand established. Charge sheet, no doubt, was served but since Inquiry Officer was appointed before the service of charge‑sheet and considering the reply, it was already decided that action will be taken. According to Standing Order 15(4) after considering the reply if it is found unsatisfactory, a charge‑sheet is to be served. No inquiry notice was served as none was produced.
3. Apart from it refusal to accept service of a notice or letter does not amount to misconduct. If the letter is refused to be received, it may be sent by registered post, but refusal to accept service is not actionable. So no misconduct was committed, even if it be admitted that the appellant had refused to receive the notice. However, the appellant is not entitled to back benefits as he did not assert that after termination of services he remained jobless.
4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the appellant is directed to be re‑instated in service without back benefits.
A. E. Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer