2014 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Laws Cited

Representation

• Moiz Ahmed for Petitioner (in C.P. No.3526 of 2011).
• Syed Shoa-un-Nabi for Petitioner (in C.P. No.246 of 2012).
• Syed Daanish Ghazi, Rizwan Saeed and Sikandar Khan for Respondent No.1.
• The case of petitioners is that when these petitions were filed, the petitioners i.e., Syed Ali Irteza Rizvi and Haji Javed Iqbal, were General Secretary and President of Pakistan Reinsurance Corporation Employees Union (CBA). Both the petitioners were issued charge sheet on 21-10-1999 under Regulations 29 and 30 of Pakistan Insurance Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations, 1959. Separate statement of allegations was attached with the charge sheets in which allegation of misconduct was levelled that petitioners with other workers forcibly entered into room of corporation Secretary and used foul and abusive language for acceptance of demands of workers. They were also charged to instigate other workers. On the basis of these allegations, first inquiry was conducted and according to petitioners, they were exonerated in the first inquiry but no record of inquiry is available. On this statement, learned counsel for respondent No.1 was directed to submit record of first inquiry report and in view of said direction though he submitted statement on 10-3-2014 in compliance of order dated 18-2-2014 but first inquiry report was not submitted. However, he submitted other documents relating to second inquiry. Since this court was not satisfied with this statement especially for the documents of first inquiry, he was again directed to submit proper statement. Today learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted a statement in which he has clearly stated that due to fire took place in the record of respondent No.1, much record pertaining to inquiry against petitioners has gone missing. It is further mentioned in the statement that in the light of available record, it came into knowledge that initially Muhammad Ali C.M., was appointed as Inquiry Officer, who failed to issue notice to witnesses hence inquiry could not be commenced and a fresh/de novo inquiry was directed to be conducted by management. This statement is taken on record.
• What we understand from case of petitioners is that petitioners have impugned office order dated 2-1-2002 through which, the petitioners have been found guilty of misconduct and awarded punishment of placing four stages lower in time scale with immediate effect. Both the petitioners have challenged inquiry report on the ground that Inquiry Officer was bias and principles of natural justice have not been followed. Even it is stated that appointment letter in which Inquiry Officer was appointed, was not provided to them to know that who is going to conduct inquiry. It is further stated that Mr. Hasan Nawaz Shah was appointed Inquiry Officer, but he was replaced due to protest lodged by petitioners and same person appeared as witness in the inquiry. It is also case of petitioners that they were victimized on account of their trade union activities as both were holding posts of President and General Secretary of union. They also claimed that inquiries were not conducted according to norms of inquiries and according to rules. Factual controversy raised by petitioners relating to inquiry proceedings could not be thrashed out in the constitutional jurisdiction. However, it is a matter of record that proper opportunity was not given to them and in the second inquiry also Chairman and Security Guard were not called by Inquiry Officer. Therefore, it is a fit case in which impugned order is liable to be set aside subject to holding of fresh inquiry. Learned counsel for petitioners and respondent No.1 agreed that fresh inquiry may be ordered on the basis of same allegations which were mentioned in charge sheet.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree