1993 PLP 301 (PLC)

Chowdhry Rasheed Ahmad for Petitioner, Date of hearing: 29th April, 1992. The petitioner was employed by respondent No. 3 as Quality Control Inspector. The petitioner was also the President of the C.BA. Union. On 22‑4‑1981, the petitioner was given a charge‑sheet by respondent No. 3 which ultimately resulted in his dismissal from service. However, the petitioner being aggrieved by the action taken by respondent No. 3 filed his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court and ultimately he was ordered to be reinstated in service by the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal. In April, 1981, the petitioner was again given a show‑cause notice as it was alleged once again that he had committed misconduct during the course of his employment. The show‑cause notice dated 22‑4‑1981 read as under:‑ It has been reported to the undersigned that in the morning of 22nd April, 1981, while Mr. Bashir Ahmad was sitting in the Time Office and explaining the position to a union official regarding the action taken against a worker, at about 8‑00 a.m. You entered in the Time Office and started shouting on Mr. Bashir Ahmad. Mr. Bashir tried to explain the position to you but instead of listening to him you started abusing and accusing him and called him a liar and a dishonest person. When he told you not to use bad language you became more violent and hit him with the register which was lying on the table in the presence of Security/Time Office staff and few others who had gathered there. You would have hit him again if he had not moved backward. You also remarked in a taunting way that he can go to the police and report that you have stabbed him with a knife and that you are not bothered for anybody. Thereafter, the petitioner was found guilty of the said charges, after an inquiry was held by respondent No. 3, with the result that his services were terminated by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 10‑6‑1991. The petitioner challenged his dismissal before the Vth Labour Court but he failed to succeed. Thereafter, he filed appeal before the learned Appellate Tribunal which was also dismissed vide order dated 15‑5‑1988, and hence the present petition. The only ground urged by Ch. Rashid Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the allegations on the basis of which the petitioner was charge‑sheeted do not constitute misconduct. Although the learned counsel has failed to advance any convincing argument in support of his contention or referred to any precedent in this regard, but it is pertinent to note that the list of acts or omissions described in Standing order 15 or constituting misconduct is not exhaustive. In the case of the Province of East Pakistan v. Muhammad Sajjad Ali Mazumdar (PLD 1962 SC 71), the Supreme Court while referring to the expression "misconduct" used in the relevant Notification reverting the Government servant from officiating appointment to his substantive rank for reasons of his efficiency observed:‑ Mr. Suhrawardy appearing for the respondent argued that the conduct imputed to his client and found established did not amount to misconduct. He admitted that the expression "misconduct" was nowhere defined in the statute or rules, but yet urged that it should be interpreted by the Court narrowly in the sense of an infringement of a binding rule of conduct applicable to Government servants. We are unable to agree. The expression "misconduct" in the notification appears to us to have been used in the wide sense of improper conduct. It will thus be seen that any improper conduct on the part of a workman will constitute "misconduct" for which the workman can be charge‑sheeted by the employer. The allegations embodied in the show‑cause notice reference to which has been made above, therefore clearly constitute acts of misconduct. The petitioner was dismissed from service by respondent No. 3 after he was found guilty of the charges by the Enquiry Officer. The two learned Tribunals below have upheld the action taken by the respondent. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations in the charge‑sheet fail to constitute misconduct. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no force in the petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./M‑1753/K ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Petition dismissed.