1977 PLP 115 (PLC)

Road Transport Corporation (West Pakistan) Removal of Undesirable Employees Ordinance (VIII of 1965)

S. 3-Service, termination of-Show-cause notice not stating employee having been previously punished for dishonesty, negligence in duty and subversive activities-Respondent denying such allegations but admitting in cross-examination to have been censured four times, suspension en one occasion, and stoppage of increment on another - Respondent also admitting to have been once fined but not cross- examined as to on what charge, he had been so fined-Likewise respondent also not cross-examined as to nature of charges on which he was censured, suspended and penalised with stoppage of incre ment-Respondent's such admission, held, no proof of his having been dishonest, negligent in duty or to have committed subversive activities-No clear charge having been framed and no inquiry being held, no opportunity, held, given to show cause-Entire proceedings in circumstances vitiated and employee entitled to back wages. This is an appeal brought by the Managing Director Punjab Road Transport Board Lahore against the order dated 22-8-72, passed by the learned Junior Labour Court, Gujranwala, setting aside the order of termination of the service of the respondent passed under section 3 of West Pakistan Road Transport Corporation, Removal of Undesirable Employees Ordinance of 1965. The facts are that no charge was framed against the respondent nor any formal inquiry was held against him. Only a show -cause notice was given to him on the ground that be was dishonest, neglected in the performance of his duties and he was guilty of subversive activities. In the show-cause notice it was not written that on account of dishonesty, negligence of duty and subversive activities he had been punished previously. The respondent denied the allegation in the reply. In cross-examination the respondent admitted that he was censured four times and once his increment was stopped and that on 22-12-1972 and on 9-8-1972, was suspended. He also admitted that once he was fined Rs. 97.44 It was not put to him in cross-examination on what charges he was censured, suspended and fined Rs. 97.44. Therefore, the admission of the respondent does not prove the he was dishonest, neglected duty or ever committed subversive activities. Mr. Abdul Karim, Assistant Traffic Manager, appeared before the lower Court but he too did not disclosed what were the previous charges and whether the respondent was convicted and sentenced on any previous charge. Reason able opportunity can be deemed to have been given only if a proper charge sheet is framed and inquiry is held in which opportunity of defence is given. As in the present case admittedly no charge was framed and no inquiry was held it cannot be said that opportunity to show cause was given. Where no inquiry is held it cannot be said that there is only a technical defect but the whole proceedings are vitiated and in such cases the employee is entitled to back wages, In this respect 1969 P L C 545, 1969 P L C 821 and 1969 P L C 841 may be cited with-great advantage. As an observation made above, I do not find any force in this appeal and dismiss it Present respondent only. Appeal dismissed.