Find a Lawyer

Application No. 8 of 1985, decided on 27th May, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Domestic enquiry‑‑Charge‑sheet not replied to by employee‑‑Management, in circumstances, held, could have taken any action against accused without resorting to enquiry.

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Dismissal for misconduct‑‑Where fair opportunity was provided to employee during course of enquiry and every witness was examined in his presence, evidence of witnesses, held, proved to be independent, when not questioned in cross‑examination y such employee.

Applicant in person.

M. Bashir Awan for Respondent.

Applicant was a permanent worker of the respondent and was said to be an office bearer of one Labour Union. One charge‑sheet, dated 18‑9‑1984 was 'said to have been served on him by post on 25‑9‑1984 alleging therein that the applicant had forcibly entered in the office of Chief Technical Superintendent alongwith others and man‑handled him. Copy of the report forming the basis of‑the charge sheet was asked but the same was not supplied and so the charge‑sheet was replied by the applicant on 27‑9‑1984. An enquiry was then ordered and after holding the enquiry, the applicant was served with a second show‑cause notice, dated 28‑10‑1984 but it was replied on 30‑4‑1984 and thereafter he was dismissed by letter, dated 1‑11‑1984. After adopting grievance procedure, the applicant filed the present petition for his reinstatement with consequential benefits.

2. The allegations made in the petition were denied in the reply statement and it was pleaded that the dismissal of the applicant was made after affording full and fair opportunity of defence and so the petition is not maintainable.

3. The applicant alone examined himself in support of his case, while on behalf of the respondent its Administrative officer Liaquat Ali Khan, and Enquiry officer Dawood Khan were tendered in evidence. I have heard Mr. M. Bashir Awan, on behalf of the Respondent. The applicant filed his written arguments and I have considered the same as well in the light of the available material on record.

4. The main contention of the applicant is that he belonged to a rival union and so the management had illegally victimized him like other members of the union. According to him, the charge sheet contained false and concocted allegations. He also submitted that co‑worker was not permitted to assist him in the proceedings and that firstly, the complainant gave his statement before the Inquiry Officer contrary to his own complaint, and, secondly, the other witnesses were not independent. Finally, he submitted that his defence witness Shaft Muhammad supported him and since he was not cross‑examined on behalf of the respondent before the Inquiry Officer. his version remained unrebutted. Mr. Awan, on the other hand, submitted that full and fair opportunity was provided to the applicant during the course of enquiry and every witness was examined in his presence. Each witness proved to be independent having no enmity with the applicant and their version was not at all even questioned in the cross‑examination made by the applicant. He has thus no case before this Court as the misconduct was fully established.

5. I have minutely scrutinized the material on record. In my view the charge sheet was not factually replied by the applicant and as is evident from his own pleadings in this Court, he only submitted a photostat copy of a report purported to have been made by one Zain Noor Shah to the Superintendent of Police, Thatta alongwith his letter placed on record as A/2. In fact the applicant did say nothing about his own stand but only placed reliance on the allegations of Zain Noor Shah. This person was however neither examined before the Inquiry Officer nor before this Court. Since the applicant did not submit his own reply, the management was perfectly justified in considering the so‑called reply of the applicant as unsatisfactory and ordering for enquiry into the matter. In fact, it was also open to the management to have immediately taken any action against the applicant without even resorting to enquiry as the applicant had not at all submitted any reply to the charge sheet but it appears that instead of adopting this short cut procedure, the management thought it advisable to afford more chance to rebut the allegations against him.

6. Now coming to the enquiry proceedings, I find that the complainant Abrar Khan specifically deposed that the applicant had caught hold of him by his neck and that his (complainant) shirt was also torn off by the applicant. This specific allegation was not questioned or challenged in any manner in the cross‑examination carried on by the applicant. Mr. Nusrat Ali, another witness, and a very Senior officer of the respondent also fully supported the complainant on this allegation but the applicant did not cross‑examine him at all in any manner. Messrs Afzal‑ul‑Haque and Muhammad Akram, and who are also Officers of the Organization, were also not cross‑examine by the applicant on the allegations of man‑handling the complainant. Similarly two workers Mahmood Akhtar Ali and Abdul Majeed also fully supported the complainant in all material particulars but none of them were cross‑examined by the applicant on this allegation. The applicant has also repeatedly admitted: that the complainant and the witnesses had no enmity whatsoever with the applicant and so it cannot be urged now that no independent witness was examined by the management to establish charge against him. The applicant in his own statement took a plea that in fact he happened to be there at the time of occurrence on hearing the noise when Zain Noor Shah., was being beaten. He did not examine such Zain Noor Shah or any other person in support of his plea nor he made any complaint whatsoever before any authority against the complainant party. His defence witness Shafi Muhammad also said nothing about this. He certified the presence of the applicant at the time of incident. The scrutiny of the record also shows that not only H the applicant himself showed his presence at the time of occurrence but he also certified the presence of the witnesses examined against him before the Inquiry Officer. Accordingly, it cannot be contended now that neither any incident took place nor the witnesses were independent. None of the witnesses were, according to the own showing of the applicant, set‑up to depose against the applicant.

7. The applicant no where pleaded in this Court that he was not permitted to cross‑examine the witnesses of the complainant or he was precluded from defending himself.

8. In view of the above, I am of the firm view that misconduct was fully established against the applicant and so the impugned dismissal order does not warrant any interference of this Court. This petition is accordingly dismissed.

A. E.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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