1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ABDUR RASHID (MEMBER).‑The appellant was served a charge‑sheet which is undated. It is reproduced Charge‑Sheet You, Mr. Nasrullah Khan A.L.M. is hereby charged as under (1) While posted as Assistant Lineman at Noorpur Sethi Complaint Office a buffalo was electrocuted at village Minara on 5th August, 1980 due to touching the stay wire of 50 K V A Trans former Sargodha Road Minara. The owner of the Buffalow has reported that you have extended the illegal extension to the houses in Dhoke Sultan Ahmed by extending only one phase and the return of the circuit was provided through earth at their premises. This action of yours has caused (1) Electrocution of the Buffalo i.e. loss of life, money to the owner. (2) You have given illegal connection to the premises without any approval causing loss of revenue to the authority. (2) If the above allegations are proved you will be guilty of mis conduct/inefficiency etc. etc. under the West Pakistan Government (E & D) Rules, 1978 applicable to you and will render yourself liable to all or any of the major penalties as described in the said Rules. (3) You are therefore, hereby required to show cause in written within 14 days of the receipt of this charge‑sheet stating at the same time whether you desire to be heard in person. (4) Your explanation should reach the undersigned within the aforesaid period failing which it shall be presumed that you have declined to offer the same. (Sd.) (Muhammad Shafiq Khan) Executive Engineer (E), Jhelum Division Rajar."

2. The above‑quoted charge‑sheet was received by the appellant on 2nd September, 1981. He furnished his defence reply (on 2nd September, 1981). An enquiry in the form of questions/answers was recorded on 2nd September, 1981. Again, on the same date viz. 2nd September, 1981, an Office Order, dated 2nd September, 1981 which is reproduced, was passed "Office Order No. 3685‑89‑Comp. Chakwal. Dated Rajar the 2nd September, 1981. Read : (1) Charge‑sheet served upon Mr. Nasrullah A.L.M. Chakwal Sub- Division on account of electrocution of a Buffalow at village Minara on 5th August, 1981. (2) Defence reply, dated 2nd September, 1981. In the light of enquiry report against Mr. Nasrullah Assistant Lineman presently posted at Chakwal complaint office Kallar Kahar has been found guilty of corruption responsible for the electrocution of a buffalo at village Minara. I being a competent authority terminate the service of Mr. Nasrullah, Assistant Lineman with immediate effect. . (Sd.) Executive Engineer (E), Jhelum Division Rajar."

3. From the order of "termination", the appellant preferred a de partmental appeal to the S.E., Rawalpindi on 16th September, 1981 to which he received no reply. Thereafter, be went to the N.I.R.C. under section 6 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 but his appeal was dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. The appellant, thereafter went to Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. 1969. The said Labour Court, on 2nd March, 1983 returned the appeal to the appellant on the grounds of jurisdiction. The appel lant, finally, came to the Tribunal on 12th March, 1983.

4. The learned counsel for the WAPDA assailed the competence of the present appeal on the ground that it was seriously time‑barred and, as such, deserved dismissal on this short ground alone. The learned counsel for the appellant, while defending the appeal and explaining the genuineness of the delay in the bona fide belief of seeking redressal which according to him, was amply proved from the vigilance of the appellant by going from one forum to the other till he came to the right one, prayed for the condonation of delay. There is an application for condonation of delay. We feel that the delay has been explained to our satisfaction and we order condonation.

5. On merits, we find that the case has been dealt with such an indecent haste, in One day on 2nd September, 1981, beginning with charge- sheet, defence reply, so‑called enquiry and "termination" order. When we consider that the incident, for which the appellant was charged and dealt with in less than 12 hours on 2nd September, 1981 had actually occurred almost a year ago on 5th August, 1980 we cannot help express ing our deep sense of anguish at the type of justice which the X E N had administered. We, therefore, accept the plea of the learned counsel (for the appellant) that the appellant has been made a scapegoat for covering up the tracks of those placed above him who are, actually, the guilty party. We would expect that the conduct of the X E N E Jhelum Division Rajar, Muhammad Shafiq Khan as well as the S.D.O. Mr. Daud, would be look into.

6. In the result, we find that the appellant was not afforded a re asonable opportunity of defence and that he was punished without any charge having been proved against him. The action taken against the appellant has been a mockery of justice. We, therefore, accept the appeal and set aside the order of "termination" which was void ab initio. The appellant would be reinstated into service. He would be entitled to full pay and allowances (including increments) for the period he remained out of service from the date of impugned order, dated' 2nd September, 1981 to the date of rejoining as a result of this order of the Tribunal.

7. No order as to costs‑ A.E. Appeal accepted.