1978 PLP 316 (PLC)

6. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the delay In filing the petition under section 25‑A should not have been condoned. Prom the perusal of the record I find that the doctor on 25‑10‑1976 had certified that the respondent was Buttering from abdominal colic and acute 'B' dysentery and, therefore, he advised complete rest from 25‑10‑1976 to 13‑11‑1976. There is no evidence in rebuttal that the respondent was not suffering from illness. Under these circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel has no force.

7. The respondent contended that the statements of the witnesses before the Inquiry Officer were not recorded on oath and as such the inquiry was invalid. In this connection he referred to sections 4 an6 5 of the Oaths Act, 1873. Section 4 of the said Act reads as under: "

4. Authority to a minister oaths and affirmations. The following Courts and persons are authorized to administer by themselves or by an officer empowered by them in this behalf, oaths and affirmations in discharge of the duties or in exercise of the powers imposed or conferred upon them respectively by law: (a) all Court and persons having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence; (b) the Commanding Officer of any military, naval or air force Station or ship occupied by troops in the service of Her Majesty; Provided‑ (1) that the oath or affirmation be administered within limits of the station, and (2) that the oath or affirmation be such as Justice of the Peace is competent to administer in Pakistan." Section S of the same Act reads as under "

5. Oath or 4fflrmattons to Lit made by witness, Interpreters, Jurors Oaths or affirmations shall be made by the following persons‑‑ (a) all witnesses, that is to., say, all persons who may lawfully be examined, or give, or be require to give, evidence by or before any Court or person having by law or consent of parties authority to examine such persons or to receive evidence ; (b) interpreters of questions put to, and evidence given by, witnesses ; and (c) Jurors." According to the respondent, section 5 of the Act would cover the case of the Inquiry Officer regarding evidence in an enquiry, because he is by consent of parties authorised to examine witnesses. The contention, that even in a domestic enquiry the evidence of the witnesses not recorded only on invalidates the enquiry proceedings, has no force in view of section 13 oil the Oaths Act, which ready as under: "

13. Proceedings and evidence not Invalidated by omission of oath or regularity.‑No omission to take any oath or mate any affirmation, no substitution of any one for tiny other of them, and no irregularity whatever in the form in which any one of them is administered, shall invalidate any proceeding or render inadmissible any evidence what ever, in or in respect of which such omission, substitution or irregularity took place, or shall affect the obligation of a witness to state the truth." In the cage, Abdul Latif Niazi v. Government of West Pakistan (P L D 1967 S C 62) it was held that evidence not recorded on oath in a departmental enquiry was valid and saved by section 13 of the Oaths Act.

8. Now coming to the merits of the case I find that there was no evidence on the record that the respondent had misappropriated or preferred the oil, which he had brought. The fact that there was a shortage in the oil, was the fault of Riaz Cotton Company and not of the respondent, who at the first instance, when he had brought the oil, he bad made a report to that effect at the gate of the mills. Further, the respondent had also produced a note of the seller company that there was a shortage. Under these circumstances, no misconduct was established against the respondent. .

9. I, accordingly, find no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.