1976 PLP 347 (PLC)

Domestic enquiry-Enquiry Officer retiring during enquiry pro ceedings-Enquiry concluded by Assistant Enquiry Officer by relying on prosecution evidence produced before first Enquiry Officer-Enquiry, held, properly held keeping in view principles of natural justice-Action taken on findings of enquiry, in circumstances, upheld. Saadullah Mumtaz for Appellant. Sadiq Muhammad Waraich for Respondent. This is an appeal preferred against an order dated 16-10.75 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Junior Labour Court, Rawalpindi on a petition of the respondent made to him under section 25-A of the I. R. O., 1969 for his re-instatement. Petition was accepted hence Management has come in appeal.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the Junior Labour Court as well as the impugned order.

3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that respondent was a Conductor. His bus was checked under the supervision of Assistant Traffic Manager (Checking) at Noorpur Shahan. This bus had a seating capacity of 50 passengers and in addition to it standing capacity of 20 passengers. At the time of checking total number of passengers on board were 30 and out of them about 17 passengers were without tickets. Fare had been charged from about 13 passengers. Another charge against him was that as he was the Incharge of the bus, he took bus from Aabpara to Noorpur Shahan without any authority. An enquiry was held against him by Mr. Khalid Saeed, Assistant Enquiry Officer. Enquiry report is Exh. RF on the file. Prior to Mr. Khalid Saeed an enquiry was held into the same charges by Mr. Gul Bahar. He concluded that enquiry on 9-7-75 when be was retired by the department.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that Mr. Gul Bahar the first enquiry officer had exonerated the respondent from all the charges. No fresh enquiry could be held. Enquiry proceedings of the enquiry which was held by Mr. Gul Bahar are attached with the file. No doubt other witnesses were examined by the enquiry officer but Abdul Hameed T. E. who was the reporter of the enquiry did not appear for evidence, so he was struck off by the enquiry officer as a witness and on the same date i.e. 9-7-75 respondent gave a statement to the effect that he would not produce any defence evidence. The fact that respondent was exonerated by the first enquiry officer is not borne out by any evidence. He did make an application copy of which is Exh. RK that he would agree to second enquiry only when the previous witnesses would come and appear in evidence on behalf of the Management. Reporter did not choose to produce them in evidence with the plea that he did not feel any need to produce them. Respondent could do so on his own behalf. Second enquiry was held for the reason as is evident from the record that Management received a letter on 20-5-75 that as Mr. Gul Bahar, Enquiry Officer had been retired therefore, any enquiry made by him should be entrusted to any other man if final orders were not passed on it. I don't see any defect in the second enquiry, it was held properly keeping in view the principles of natural justice.

5. In that view of the matter, I am constrained to interfere with the orders of the Junior Labour Court. I, therefore, set it aside and accept the appeal and agree with the action taken by the Management.