1984 PLP 1320 (PLC(CS))

The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 1st June, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer. Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service.

2. The allegation for which the appellant was dismissed from service was that he did not deliver Tanker No. LET‑3855 containing 8.53 M/Tonnes of Soyabean oil to the respondent Mills that was entrusted to him at Mughalpura Railway Station although entries in the relevant register of the respondent Mills were forged. The appellant was duly charge‑sheeted and after holding an enquiry, his services were terminated. His previous petition under section 25‑A was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated permitting the respondent to hold enquiry. Enquiry was held which culminated in his dismissal from service. The appellant did not reply to the charge‑sheet as none is on the file. This is noteworthy that the appellant did not deny the allegations either in his grievance notice or his grievance petition or even in his statement made before the learned lower Court. He has raised objection about the enquiry proceedings only. Need less to say that show‑cause notice is given and enquiry is held to afford opportunity to the employee concerned to defend himself and to show that the charges are baseless. In cases where charges are admitted, no enquiry, is necessary and in the case where charges are not specifically denied only legal formalities are fulfilled. In purely civil cases absence of specific denial is deemed as admission but in criminal or quasi‑criminal cases this is not so. The appellant denied neither the entrustment of the tanker nor the allegation of its non‑delivery in the Mills. Even in purely criminal cases the trial starts after the statement of the accused is recorded with regard to the charges levelled against him. If he admits the allega tion, he is convicted and if he denies, then prosecution evidence and there after, defence evidence following the statement of the accused under section 342 are taken down. In criminal cases freedom of the accused is a% stake, so they are more important and technical in comparison with depart‑mental enquiries. Whereas in purely criminal cases denial of the commission of offence on the part of the accused is necessary for starting the trial and in departmental enquiry is all the more necessary. If merely the charge‑sheet is not replied, it is not material but when charges are not denied at any subsequent stage, such as reply to second show cause notice, if any, grievance notice, grievance petition and in the statement of the employee, the weight of onus is very much decreased from the prosecution.

3. The first objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Enquiry Officer cross‑examined the prosecution witnesses and thereafter did not allow the appellant to further cross‑examine the witnes ses. This fact has been admitted by the Enquiry Officer in cross examination. A witness is cross‑examined to test his veracity and to show that he is not a true witness. Since the contention is that the Enquiry Officer cross‑examined the prosecution witnesses, it was for the benefit of the appellant and not to his detriment. Apart from it giving of further opportunity to the employee to further cross‑examine the witness is necessary, if some material has come on the record against the employee concerned. But. it has not been shown by the learned counsel that by cross‑questions of the Enquiry Officer, some material came on the record that bad not been deposed by the witness in his examination‑in‑chief. The Enquiry Officer was cross-examined by the appellant before the learned lower Court suggesting him that he brought in the missing links by cross‑examining the witnesses bust such a suggestion was repelled back by the Enquiry Officer. Since the learned counsel has not pointed out that the Enquiry Officer by cross‑examin ing the witnesses brought incriminating material against the appellant, the absence of further opportunity of cross‑examination by the appellant is not material.

4. The other point raised is that application Exh. P. E. was made to the Enquiry Officer for supply of copy of previous enquiry but the needful was not done. The Enquiry Officer had told the appellant as stated by the former that the record of the previous enquiry was not with him. This is not the contention of the appellant that such an application was given to the management also. The Manager could supply the copy and not the Enquiry Officer since the said record was not with him. Moreover, such an application should have been made to the Management much earlier since the time fixed by the Court for concluding the enquiry was only one month.

5. The next point argued is that no opportunity was afforded to the appellant to give his own statement. This contention has no legs to stand. The Enquiry Officer offered the appellant to give his statement on 28th but the latter said that he would give his statement on 29th. The fact is that the appellant had to get some defence witnesses summoned by the Management and to examine Abdul Aleem. The latter was not present in the Mills. The Enquiry Officer asked the appellant to examine any or of the other witnesses named in his list who were present instead of Abdul Aleem who was not present but he refused. The learned lower Court while permitting fresh enquiry had fixed one month's time for completing the enquiry. The enquiry was not only against the appellant but others also and as the time was about to expire within a day or two, the Enquiry Officer asked the appellant to conclude his defence evidence and to get recor ded his defence statement. If the Management had fixed the time, it could be got extended but the time limit had been fixed by the Court, so the Enquiry Officer had to complete it within the time fixed. First of all the appellant gave application for supply of copy of the previous enquiry, then asked for changing the Enquiry Officer but when the said tactics failed he refused to get his statement recorded. It was an attempt on behalf of the appellant to delay the conclusion of the enquiry, so that the time fixed by the Court may expire and then to raise objection that since the enquiry had not been completed within the time fixed, no conviction could be based upon such an enquiry. The Enquiry Officer was under the circum stances justified in not adjourning the enquiry to 29th. The line of defence adopted by the appellant was not of any use to him. His witnes ses Muhammad Akhtar and Abdul Hamid said that the appellant had brought a tanker and that it was decanted but the appellant did not take up such a position at any stage. On the contrary the evidence of P. W. 4 M. Ashraf, Shift Chemist is that Jaffar Hussain, Oil Clerk, who is co‑accused, had told him that the appellant had delighted from the tanker at More Joyanwala. Since according to the co‑accused of the appellant, the appellant had left the tanker in the way, how he could be seen by the defence witnesses in the Mills ? If more witnesses had been examined to say that the appellant had brought the Tanker No. 3855, the value of this evidence could not have been better than his defence witnesses already examined.

6. Lastly, it has been argued that record of tank in which tankers are decanted was not produced to prove the shortage. The evidence is that in order to show that Tanker No. 3855 had reached the Mills and decanted, palm oil of tank No. 3 was poured into the Soyabean oil tank No. 2 and the shortage thus caused to palm oil tank No. 3 was made up by heating up by means of steam. It was found that tank No. 3 was very hot and its dip had exceeded even the normal level. Since in record fraudulent entries had been made, the shortage could not be shown by the record of the tanks and thus it was not necessity to produce the same. By the evidence it was amply proved that Tanker No. LHR‑3855 full of Soyabean oil was entrusted to the appellant for being brought to the Mills but he did not bring it. This is also evident that the oil was sold in the market. So, the charge stood amply proved and the appellant was rightly dismissed from service and his grievance petition was justifiably disallowed.

7. As a result of what has been observed above, the appeal have no substance is dismissed. A. E. Appeal dismissed.