1984 PLP 756 (PLC(CS))

‑‑Domestic enquiry‑Defence opportunity‑Accused not enquired whether he wanted to produce any defence evidence‑Enquiry not adjourned after close of prosecution case‑Enquiry, in circumstances, held, not proper for want of defence opportunity. Malik Muhammad Asghar for Appellants. Ch. Ismatullah for Respondent. Date of hearing : 9th January, 1983. The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision dated 21st October, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petitions of the appellants were‑dismissed. As the facts and law points involved these appeals are common, they are being disposed of together through the single judgment in which Muhammad Aslam will be described as appellant too. 1, Shaukat Ali as appellant No. 2 and the Punjab Agricultural Development & Supplies Corporation as the respondent.

2. The fan are that Muhammad Aslam, appellant No. 1, is a Store Supervisor and 'Shaukat Ali, appellant No. 2, is a Store Keeper in the respondent's establishment at Chiniot Sale Point. The said sale point was informed by the Head Office that the prices of the fertilizer had increased and a direction was issued to stop the sale and to submit daily balance sheets upto 24th February, 1980. The allegation against the appellants was that they sold fertilizer on 25th February, 1980 at increased rates but showed that the sale had been made prior to that any thus embezzled the difference of the prices. During the enquiry two wit nesses were examined against the appellants but they were not the eye witnesses of the sales. One of the witnesses stated that confession was made but that evidence is against Muhammad Aslam only and not against Shaukat Ali. Before the learned lower court the sale register was produced but no such register was brought during the enquiry. Muhqmmad Aslam, no doubt, admitted the entries of 23rd and 24th February, 1980 to be in his handwriting but there is no evidence about rates at which he had sold the fertilizer on the said dates.

3. No opportunity of defence evidence was afforded to the appellants, therefore, on the basis of such an enquiry no order of dismissal could be passed. No doubt opportunity of cross‑examination was afforded to the appellants but no opportunity to produce defence evidence was given. It was not enquired from them whether they wanted to produce any evidence in defence, nor after the close of the prosecution case the enquiry. was adjourned giving time to the appellants to produce defence evidence, if any. If the enquiry had been adjourned, of course it could be sail that proper opportunity was given to them .to defend themselves.

4. As a result of the observations made above, I accept the appeals and setting aside the orders of dismissal of the appellants and the impugned decision of the learned lower court, direct their reinstatement in service. Since the appellants have succeeded only on a technical point which is that opportunity of defence was not afforded to them, they are not entitled to back benefits. A. E. Appeals accepted,