1984 PLP 937 (PLC(CS))

Asghar Mahmood for Appellant. Ch. Sadiq Muhammad Waraich for Respondent. Date of hearing : 6th August, 1983. This appeal arises from the decision, dated 4th April, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits.

2. Two charge‑sheets were issued to the respondent one on 30th arch, 1978.and the other on 4th December, 1.980. Both of them were based upon the allegations that the respondent had realised fare from some Passengers detailed in the said charge‑sheets but did not issue tickets and had embezzled the fare. The only point upon which the ic s learned lower Court has directed the reinstatement of the appellant is delay between the issuance of the charge‑sheets and the passing of the dismissal order. The dismissal order was passed on 20th October, 1981. So far as the first mentioned charge‑sheet is were issued from 7th May, 1978 to 12th December, 1979. The last notice was for 20th December, 1979 and enquiry was held on the said date. Regarding the second mentioned charge‑sheet enquiry notices were issued from 8th January, 1980 to 14th January, 1980. The last one was for 20th January, 1980 and enquiry was conducted on the said date. The enquiry report relating to the charge‑sheet, dated 30th March, 1978 is dated 27th December, 1979 (Exh. R‑12) and the one relating to the charge‑sheet, dated 9th December, 1979 is dated 21st January, 1980 (Exh. R‑22). Second show‑cause notice with regard to the enquiry report, dated 27th December, 1979 (Exh. R‑ 11) was received by the appellant on 5th January, 1980 and that of enquiry report, dated 21st January, 1980 (Exh. R‑20) on 30th January, 1980. Reply to the second show‑cause notice (Exh. R‑ 11) was given by the respondent on 9th January, 1980 (Exh. R‑13) and that of second show‑cause notice (Exh. R‑20) on 20th February, 1980 (Exh. R‑23). On both the replies it is written and signed by the respondent that the respondent appeared before the District Manager on 20th October, 1981. The writing, however, is not in the hand of the respondent.

3. As is evident that the enquiry notices for many dates were issued in respect of both the enquiries but it does not appear why the enquiries were held late. Notices were duly served. No reason is given for it. Rather no record of the proceedings except the dates on which actually enquiries were held was produced. Likewise no reasons can be found on the record why personal hearing took place late when the replies to the second show‑cause notices were filed not with any inordinate delay.

4. The delay in holding the enquiries after charge‑sheeting the respondent is not very much objectionable but the delay in holding personal hearing and passing order of punishment is astonishing. No plausible reason has been given to explain this inordinate delay. The delay in each case is abut 14 years which cannot be left unnoticed. The silence on the part of the appellant gave an impression that after considering his reply to the second show‑cause notice the matter had been dropped. After the submission of the enquiry report the matter. is simplified. After observing the formality of personal hearing which is customary with P.U.T.C. and P.R.T.B. case, the matter is to be finally decided one way or the other. I do not find any force in the argument that the District Manager was transferred and that there were matters of more importance. There is nothing on the record to show that frequently District Managers were transferred. The so‑called matters of more importance too have not been disclosed in evidence. If some lenient view had been taken, there could have been lesser scope to interfere but extreme penalty of dismissal cannot be upheld and was rightly set aside by the learned lower Court.

5. As a result of the discussion made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss the same. A. E. ‑ Appeal dismissed.