1978 PLP 150 (PLC)

‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Re‑instatement of dismissed worker‑No substantial evidence led against worker in domestic enquiry nor evidence available properly called for and made a part of enquiry‑‑Technical mistake on part of Management‑Technicalities making for proof of guilt and non observance of same reducing enquiry to a farce‑Benefit of non observance cannot be denied to worker faced with dismissal from service Order of dismissal set aside and worker ordered to be re‑instated but without back benefits. Muhammad Hamid Ahmed Khan, has brought this application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for reinstatement as Stores Supervisor of the Agricultural Development & Supplies Corporation, Rahim Yar Khan. He stated is the application that he was issued charge sheet on 4‑6‑1976, which was replied by him on 11‑6‑1976. Subsequently without giving him any personal hearing he was terminated. As he was not properly heard in the enquiry, he therefore deserved to be re‑instated. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent Management (Agricultural Development & Supply Corporation. Rahim Yar Khan) it was stated that the petitioner was duly charge‑sheeted for the misconduct and after holding a regular enquiry against him be was terminated from service in due course. According to the charge‑sheet the following allegations were made against the petitioner: (1) As Store Supervisor of Sale Depot at Chak No. 52/P he overcharged from customers in the sale of cotton seed fertilizers. (2) He removes cotton, seed from some of the bags and sold short weight bags to the growers. (3) He gave fifty rupees demonetised note to a grower while returning him the balance money. According to the enquiry report Exh. P‑3 (R. 4) the first two charges were not proved against tae petitioner. The only charge, proved in the enquiry was what he charged the customers in the sale of cotton seeds enhanced rates and deposited the amount realized by him according to the new rates fixed by the Government which had been reduced by Rs. 2 per bag. It is said the extra amount realized by the petitioner out of the sale of cotton, seed bags wag misappropriated by him. A perusal of the enquiry proceedings coupled with the enquiry report reveals that the enquiry officer did no collect the evidence, which was basically necessary to prove the misappropriated of the money against the petitioner. According to the enquiry report the following observation make for the findings on the relevant allegation against the petitioner: "Any how the accused has clearly admitted that he has been selling cotton seed on old rates till tee received information regarding new rates from the officer of the Assistant Manager whereas latter of Assistant Manager, Rahim Yar Khan No. AN‑9112‑7676. It means he has been overcharging Rs 2 per bag up to 7‑6‑1976 on the plea that be received no instructions from the office but he started de positing money at the new rate with effect from 1‑6‑1976. As is char by his office record and pay‑in‑slip No. 137299 dated 1‑6‑1971;." Obviously it was necessary for the Enquiry Officer to receive in evidence pay‑in‑slip No. 1372199 dated 1‑6‑1976 and also to look for the evidence according to which the petitioner misappropriated the extra amount charged by him on the old rates of cotton seeds. I asked the learned counsel for the respondent to show me the relevant pay‑in‑slip or any other evidence making for the proof of the misappropriation of the amount in question. But be could not make any clear and specific reference to satisfy me on this point. He only referred to the statement of the petitioner made by him before the enquiry officer in which he admitted to the effect that the intima tion regarding the now rates I.e. the reduced rates was received by him on 7‑6‑1976 and according to his affidavit put before tie enquiry officer he continued selling the cotton seeds at the old rates till he officially received the intimation regarding the reduction in the rates. According to the statement of the petitioner in the Court he made it clear that he sold a number of cotton seed bags on 30th and 31st May 1,76 on the old rates and Rs. 70 was charged by him in extra to the rate fixed by the Government. But the said extra amount was duly depesited by him in the bank. In face of this statement the reference made to the statement or affidavit of the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer scarcely leads to the inference that any misappropriation of the Governm4ent money could validly be stamped against him. Evidently in the domestic enquiry no substantial evidence, war led against the petitioner or it was not properly cared for and made a part of the domestic enquiry, which was rather necessary. It may be a technical mistake on the part of the Management but such technicalities which make for the proof of the guilt and without observing of which the enquiry is reduced to a face, the benefit thereof cannot be denied to the worker who is faced with no less a penalty than dismissal from service Under the circumstances the Impugned order of dismissal being set aside the petitioner is directed to be re‑instated within a period of 7 days without back benefits. The petitioner cannot be givers beak benefits inasmuch as he has been given the benefit by reason of the technical defects in the domestic enquiry. The file may be consigned. Petition accepted,