2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

ALI BAIG, J.

The instant civil revision petition arises from the impugned judgment/decree dated 20-10-2018, passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit, whereby the learned 1st appellate court has dismissed the Civil 1st appeal of the present petitioners/defendants and has maintained judgment/decree dated 30-5-2017, passed by the learned trial court.

2. Briefly the relevant facts necessary for disposal of instant civil revision petition are that the plaintiff/present petitioner was serving as bus driver in Northern Areas Transport Corporation. During his service his bus met with an accident on 12th July 2012, on the way to Rawalpindi at Mansarah.

3. Accordingly, the NATCO authorities terminated the respondent / plaintiff from service by fixing responsibility of accident of bus against the respondent/plaintiff vide office order dated 19th August 2012. The respondent/plaintiff feeling aggrieved by afore-said termination order filed a civil suit for declaration and reinstatement of his service in the court of Civil Judge 1st Class No.III Gilgit, against the present petitioners/defendants.

4. The present petitioners being defendants in the suit resisted the suit by way of filing written statement in the learned trial court wherein they have raised certain legal objections and have also denied the averments of plaint.

5. On the basis of divergent pleadings of the parties the learned trial court framed the following 9 issues including relief:-

6. After framing of issues the learned trial court directed the parties to lead their evidence in support of their respective claims. Accordingly, the plaintiff/present respondent produced two oral witnesses besides recording of his own statement in the trial court. The defendants/present petitioners adduced one oral witness in the trial court and got recorded their statement through their departmental representative namely Sardar Hussain Assistant Manager NATCO.

7. On conclusion of trial the learned trial court after hearing of final arguments on behalf of both the parties has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff/respondent vide judgment/decree dated 30-5-2017. The said judgment/decree was challenged through civil 1st appeal in the court of the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit. The learned 1st appellate court after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties has dismissed civil 1st appeal of the present petitioners/defendants by maintaining judgment/decree dated 20-10-2018.

8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied from the judgment/decree dated 20-10-2018, passed by the learned 1st appellate court, the petitioners have preferred the instant civil revision petition in this court.

9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf the petitioners contended that the impugned judgments/decrees passed by the learned courts below are contrary to law and facts on the record of the case, as such the impugned judgments/decrees passed by both the courts below are not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the civil suit is not maintainable as relationship between the petitioners and respondent is master and servant and the respondents/ plaintiffs can approach labor court for re-dressal of his grievances. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the accident was taken place due to gross negligence of plaintiff/respondent and the corporation has sustained heavy losses on account of repair and renovation of bus, therefore, the petitioners have rightly terminated the respondent/plaintiff from service.

10. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants and supported the impugned judgment/decree passed by the learned courts below by contending that the bus driven by the present respondent/plaintiff was met with an accident due to failure of break and not due the negligence of the respondent/plaintiff. The learned counsel for the respondent further argued that no show-cause notice was issued to the plaintiff/respondent nor an inquiry was conducted before passing of termination order of the respondent dated 9th August, 2012, hence both the learned courts below have rightly decreed the suit in favour of the present respondent/plaintiff and against the petitioners/defendants.

11. I have given my dispassionate thought to arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance and I have gone through the record of case minutely.

12. From perusal of the impugned termination order dated 9th August, 2012, it transpires that no any show-cause notice was issued to the respondent/plaintiff nor any inquiry was conducted against the present respondent/plaintiff before passing/issuing office order dated 9th August, 2012, whereby the respondent was terminated from service which was violative of natural justice and against the relevant rules and regulations of NATCO, thus the termination order of the respondent / plaintiff could not be sustained being violative of natural justice and equity.

13. Moreover, the respondent/plaintiff through his oral evidence/witnesses namely Habibur Rehman PW-I and Saeedur Rehman P.W 2 has proved that the accident was taken place due to break failure/fault developed in the bus and not due to gross negligence of the plaintiff/respondent. Even the DW-I namely Muntazir Hussain in his court statement has also admitted that the break of the bus was not in order/weak therefore, it met with an accident at Mansarah. Thus the plaintiff/respondent has proved his case/claim by adducing cogent and reliable oral evidence in the learned trial court and as such both the courts below have rightly decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.

14. The conclusion drawn by both the learned courts below does not suffer from any error or illegality, hence does not require any interference by this court. Accordingly, I do not find any merits in this revision petition which is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. File. ZC/73/GB Revision dismissed.