1989 PLP 950 (PLC(CS))

M.S. Bokhari for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th June, 1988. This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 27‑4‑1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant brought for his reinstatement in service has been dismissed.

2. On the allegation of misbehaviour the appellant was dismissed from service and he had after the service of grievance notice brought a grievance petition which was dismissed but on appeal the appellant was directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits and the respondents were allowed to proceed, if they liked, from the stage of service of second show‑cause notice and to redecide the question of the commission of misconduct by the appellant after getting from him reply to the second show‑cause notice. The respondents asked the appellant to resume duty and simultaneously asked him to give reply to the second show‑cause notice already served upon him in 1981. The appellant instead of giving reply raised objections in his application, copy of which Exh. P.3. The Circle Executive after the receipt of Exh. P. 3 passed the dismissal order, copy of which is Exh. P.5.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the appellant was not actually put to duty and simultaneously with the order of allowing him to resume duty he was called upon to submit reply to the second show‑cause notice and that since the appellant did not give reply, the order of dismissal from service was not justified and legal. I do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel. This is not the case of the appellant that although the order was passed allowing the appellant to resume duty yet actually duty was not given to him and he was refrained from discharging his duties. So the order allowing the appellant to resume duty was sufficient and the mere fact that in the same order the appellant was asked to give reply to the second show cause notice was not sufficient to render the dismissal order as illegal.

4. However, this argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is forceful that the Circle Executive who passed the dismissal order Exh. P. 5 was prejudiced against the appellant. The same Circle Executive had lodged an F.I.R. against the appellant describing himself as an eye‑witness of the incident. Such an order, therefore, is not sustainable. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to successfully oppose the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant in this respect.

5. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the order of dismissal and the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the grievance petition is accepted and the appellant is directed to be reinstated in service permitting the respondents to give opportunity to the appellant to reply to the second show‑cause notice of 1981 and after considering the same and giving opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant, if the latter asks for it, decide again the question of the commission of the misconduct by the appellant. The question of back benefits would depend upon the decision of the commission of misconduct. A.E./545/Lb. P Appeal accepted.