1994 PLP 606 (PLC)

replenished from other sources 1f 4600 liters (5) Total quantity 26131 liters (6) Actual stock received at start of incoming shift at 23‑00 hours 14150 liters (7) Net shortage 11981 liters Mohsin Saeed and Naseebuddin in connivance with each other had stolen 11981 liters of fuel valued at Rs. 68,945 approximately, with a view to achieve wrongful gains." The petitioner had replied to the same on 24‑1‑1988 and since it was not found to be satisfactory, an enquiry letter was issued on 4‑2‑1988. The Enquiry Committee constituted, included ZA. Baluch and Khan Amir. They had examined a number of persons, namely Habib Akhtar Zuberi, Babur Zaman, Ziaul Haq, Muhammad Rauf, Attaur Rehman Soomro and Khalid Idris. The petitioner had produced Mohsin Saeed as a defence witness.

3. Agreeing with the enquiry report, wherein the petitioner was found to be guilty, he came to be dismissed on 9‑6‑1988. The grievance notice was sent on 10‑7‑1988 and thereafter came the petition before the Labour Court.

4. The petition came to be resisted by the respondents. It was stated that the entries in the Shift Log Book at the beginning and the end of the shift coupled with the fact that the petitioner had taken the bouzer outside the Airport Area clearly established the guilt of the petitioner. The other contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner also came to be denied.

5. The petitioner examined himself while Zainul Abedeen and Khan Amir appeared on behalf of the respondents.

6. The Labour Court found the material issues against the petitioner and dismissed the petition resulting in this appeal.

7. The appellant had admittedly been retained for over‑time duties from B to C Shift. The bouzer was all along in his possession. The opening balance has already been detailed in the charge and need not be detailed here. At the end of the shift of Vadia when again the jet fuel was measured by Ziaul Haq a shortage of 7,381 liters was found. All along the vehicle was in the custody of the appellant. It is also in evidence from Khalid Idris that in between he had taken out the vehicle and the jeep through the Wide Body Hanger. Khalid Idris, who is a Sub‑Inspector of ASF had enquired from him as to where he was taking the vehicles and was told that the same were being taken out with the permission of the Shift Incharge.

8. There can be no two opinions that the shortage was to be explained by the appellant and no other person. It is true that there is no eye‑witness account forthcoming, but the circumstances are irrefutable.

9. The enquiry proceedings were also very fair. The appellant was present with his co‑worker and the witnesses were cross‑examined. His initials are thereon all the papers. It is true that he wanted to examine some witnesses in his defence but on his own showing before the Enquiry Committee, Safdar Ali Shah, Ali and Ismail had allegedly been pressurised and refused to come forward. He had, however, examined Mohsin Saeed, the co‑accused. So, it cannot remotely be suggested that he was denied any opportunity to put forward his case.

10. His contention that he had come to harm because Habib Akhtar Zuberi was nursing a grudge against him and that too because of his involvement in the union activities is just a cock and bull story. It is not any body's case that he was or had ever been even an office‑bearer of the Union. The findings of the Enquiry Committee, which led to the order of dismissal, I are to my mind not open to any exception.

11. Under the circumstances I will uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2301/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.