1993 PLP 540 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑R.8‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185‑‑‑Person who had served charge‑sheet on employee and had ordered enquiry against him was competent to do so‑‑‑Employee was given full opportunity to participate in enquiry; he availed of such opportunity and examined witnesses in his defence‑‑‑Employee was given another opportunity to clear his position when he received second show‑cause notice‑‑Mere fact that employee was not heard in person by Appellate Authority would not violate disciplinary proceedings against him‑‑‑In service rules applicable to employee no provision existed whereby he was to have been heard by Appellate Authority in person‑‑‑Employee in his memorandum of appeal did not even ask for personal hearing‑‑‑Penalty of removal from service could not be set aside for the reason that employee was not heard in person. Khan A. Hamid, Advocate, Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant. Ch. Fazal‑e‑Hussain, Advocate, Supreme Court, instructed by Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 18th October, 1992. SHAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The appellant was employed as a skilled workman in the Electrical .Shops, Mughalpura, Lahore. On 18‑7‑1968 he abused and quarrelled with a co‑worker. For this act of indiscipline he was placed under suspension and served with a charge‑sheet. An enquiry, was held against him in which he was given full opportunity to defend himself. The Enquiry Committee found him guilty whereupon he was served with another charge‑sheet to show‑cause why he should not be removed from service: He submitted an explanation which was not accepted and by an order dated 13‑9‑1968 he was discharged from service after being given one month's pay in lieu of one month's notice. He preferred a departmental appeal which met with no success. He filed a civil suit to call in question the legality of the order of termination of his services. The suit was decreed by the Senior Civil Judge, Lahore. On appeal by the respondent the judgment of the trial Court was set aside and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision. After the remand the trail court once again decreed the suit. The respondent preferred an appeal in the District Judge and the suit of appellant was dismissed. He filed a second appeal in the High Court by special leave.

2. Leave to appeal was granted to the appellant to examine two questions: (1) Whether the charge‑sheet had been issued to the appellant and the enquiry had been ordered by an incompetent authority, and (2) whether the appellant was entitled to be heard in person by the appellate authority. So far as the second question is concerned it is not disputed that the appellant' was given full opportunity to participate in the enquiry. He availed of the opportunity and even examined witness in his defence. He was given another opportunity to clear his position when he received the second show‑cause notice. In the circumstances the mere fact that he was not heard in‑ person by the appellate authority would not vitiate the disciplinary proceedings against him. It is also to be noticed that in the service rules applicable to him there was no provision that he should have been heard by the appellate authority in person. In fact in his memorandum of appeal he did not even ask for a personal hearing. In the circumstances there is no merit in the contention that the order of his removal from service was liable to be set aside for the reason that he had not been heard in person.

3. As regards the first question the enquiry was initiated and a charge- sheet was served upon the appellant by the foreman of his workshop. Now the appellant was a Class IV employee and was working under the supervision of the Foreman who was a Class III official, as provided by the Schedule annexed to the Railway Service (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, by which the appellant was governed in disciplinary matters, the foreman was to be regarded as the, lower authority with reference to him. Under Rule 8 of the said Rules the Foreman was competent to frame a charge‑sheet and order an enquiry against him. The appellant's contention therefore that the charge‑sheet was served and enquiry ordered against him by an incompetent authority is clearly not tenable.

4. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. AA./G‑379/S Appeal dismissed.