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.LHR‑277 of 1985, decided on 14th October, 1985.
‑‑‑S.O. 15(4)‑‑Domestic enquiry‑‑Dismissal for misconduct‑‑Second show‑cause notice‑‑Not required by law‑‑Second show‑cause notice necessary if some new material has been introduced.
1972 S C M R 455 held no longer applicable.
Mian Abdur Rashid for Appellant.
Javed Altaf for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 6th October, 1985.
The decision, dated 3‑4‑1985 passed .by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition a_‑ the appellant for his re‑instatement in service was dismissed.
2. The allegation against the appellant was that on being searched he was found removing out of the factory 27 Roties, one Kg. of sugar, one egg and some quantity of Haldi. No defect has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the inquiry. He has, however, argued that copy of the inquiry report was not given and no second show‑cause notice was served upon the appellant. He has relied upon 1972 S C M R 455. But in Islamabad Club's case, the Supreme Court has taken contrary view. It has been observed that if some new material has been introduced, service of second show‑cause notice would be necessary. There is nothing in Standing Order 15 (4) which may have prescribed that giving of second show‑cause notice is necessary.
3. The other point argued is that R.W.1 who is Incharge of the Canteen, said that no shortage was found in the articles on the date on which the appellant was caught. The appellant may not have stolen the Sugar and Haldi on the same day but may have been stealing small quantity daily and when the quantity of stolen Sugar and Haldi became one kilogramme, he removed it. Stealing of small quantity would not show any shortage. So far as breads are concerned, they too would not have necessarily shown any shortage because if breads are prepared of lesser quantity of flour, no shortage in flour would appear. The statement of R.W.1, therefore, is not destructive to the case of the respondent. As the appellant was caught red handed while removing the articles out of the factory the offence of theft stood amply proved by the evidence produced against him. Regarding egg it has been argued that daily one egg is supplied to the employee of the Canteen free and the appellant did not use the egg and was removing his share of egg. This may be correct but it makes no difference since other articles such as sugar, Haldi and 27 breads were proved to have been stolen by the appellant. So, he was rightly dismissed and his petition was rightly disallowed.
4. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
A. E. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer