1989 PLP 70 (PLC)

‑‑‑ Domestic enquiry‑‑Evidence‑‑Not the quantity but quality of evidence, held would be material in a theft charge‑‑Stolen articles recovered from possession o' accused‑‑Statements of two other witnesses not supporting recovery‑‑No enmity, ill‑will or malice suggested against security guard‑‑Statement of security guard could not be brushed aside. Ghulam Rasool for Appellant. Date of hearing: 6th June, 1987. This is an appeal preferred against the decision dated 20‑4‑1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service has been dismissed.

2. The allegation, for which the appellant was dismissed from service, was that during his personal search one-diesel filter and 72 electric welding rods were recovered and the appellant did not give any satisfactory answer about his possession of the said articles. Three witnesses including the security guard who had effeted the search were examined during the inquiry. The security guard namely Mohammad Siddiq supported the recovery of the articles. Witness No. 2, however, stated that the recovery was not effected in his presence and that the security guard had told him about it. The third witness deposed that the appellant and Mohammad Siddiq, security guard were found by him talking to each other and when after ten minutes he again went there, they were found quarrelling. Explaining the quarrel he stated that Mohammad Siddiq was saying that the articles were recovered from the appellant but the latter was denying this fact. Learned counsel says that since the two recovery witnesses did not support the recovery, the appellant had been wrongly punished. This is true that the two witnesses did not say that the articles were recovered in their presence but not the quantity but the quality of evidence is material. No enmity with Mohammad Siddiq, security guard, was suggested by the appellant either in his reply to the charge‑sheet or while cross‑examining the said witness or even in his own defence statement made before the inquiry officer. He simply denied the recovery of the articles and said that the articles were planted upon him. He did not give the reason why he was illegally involved in the case and why the case had been concocted against him. In the absence of any allegation of enmity, there appears to be no reason to discredit the security guard. Needless to say that it is the duty of the security staff to effect search of the persons who are leaving the factory and if during search something is recovered it is taken into custody and the matter is reported to the higher authorities. Mohammad Siddiq, security guard, therefore, while reporting the case against the appellant discharged his duties and in the absence of any allegation of enmity, ill‑will or malice, his statement cannot be brushed aside.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has said that the articles were bulky in size and sufficient in number, therefore, they could be visible and there was no need of effecting personal search. He concludes that the story of recovery, therefore, is false. Not only that the articles, which openly a person is carrying, are recovered but besides their recovery personal search is also effected to see if anything else the person is removing from the factory. Since actually personal search of the appellant was effected, therefore, in the charge‑sheet it was said that as a result of personal search, the articles were recovered from the possession of the appellant. The appellant, therefore, was rightly removed from service and the learned lower Court was justified in dismissing his grievance petition.

4. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. A.E./397/Lb. P. Appeal dismissed.