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. MG‑598 of 1984, decided on 20th March, 1985.
‑‑‑-Dismissal for misconduct‑‑Multiple charge‑sheet‑‑Two out of three charges of misconduct established in enquiry and third charge not established‑‑Punishment of dismissal, in circumstances, held, not exceptionable‑‑Dismissal of grievance petition against dismissal order upheld by Appellate Tribunal‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3).
Appellant in person. Irfan Wain for Respondent.
The decision dated 12th of August, 1984, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan, has been challenged whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for reinstatement in service was dismissed.
The appellant was a Chowkidar. The allegations against him were that he received the electrical charges of electricity bills and misappropriated the same which afterwards were deposited by him, that he remained absent for more than 10 days without leave and that he had stolen bank's scroll of 25th July, 1981 to conceal the misappropriation of the amounts of the electricity bills. He was given charge‑sheet Exh. R.1 to which he gave reply Exh. R.2. In reply to the charge‑sheet, he admitted the fact of receiving the amount of three electrical bills and also admitted to have issued receipts with his own signatures. He also said that he failed to enter the said receipts in the relevant books, and prayed for pardon. Regarding the bank's scroll, he showed his ignorance. He explained his absence taking the plea that there were some domestic troubles. The enquiry was held in which he participated. During the enquiry, his statement was recorded in which he admitted the receipt of amount of the electricity bills and said that he had afterwards deposited the same. One witness was examined in the enquiry on behalf of the prosecution who proved writing of the appellant (Exh.R‑4/4), in which he had made admissions. By the admissions made by the appellant in reply to the charge‑sheet and in his statement recorded in the enquiry, the two charges mentioned above stood amply proved against him. The enquiry was properly held in which he was afforded proper opportunity to prove his plea taken in connection with the absence. fie did not disclose the domestic troubles which according to him prevented him from attending to his duties. Manifestly, he became absent since he had misappropriated the amounts of the electricity bills. Second show‑cause notice Exh.R.5 was given to the appellant and he submitted its reply Exh.R.6. Thus, a proper enquiry was held against him and he was afforded opportunity to prove A his innocence. The third allegation no doubt was not established but since two of the charges were established, the punishment of dismissed was rightly imposed upon him.
As a result of the above observation I do not find any force in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
A. E.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer