1990 PLP 741 (PLC)

This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 16‑1‑1989 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service was dismissed.

2. The allegations for which the appellant was dismissed from service are contained in charge‑sheet Exh. P‑

5. There are five charges and each one is with regard to the misbehaviour of the appellant with the Manager. It was argued before the learned lower Court that the statement of the appellant was recorded before receiving prosecution evidence but it has not found favour with the learned lower Court and the reason given by the learned lower Court is that an inquiry in purely judicial term cannot be expected from the Inquiry Officers. It has also been observed by the learned lower Curt that the appellant had expressed his full confidence in the appointment of the Inquiry Officer and that the witnesses were examined in his presence, with the result that there was lot of material against the appellant. The learned lower Court has relied upon Exh. R‑1 also, which, according to it, was admitted by the appellant. The learned lower Court has wrongly held that the inquiry was properly held. First of all the statement of the appellant, was recorded and thereafter prosecution witnesses were examined and after that no statement of the appellant was recorded. The statement of a' person under inquiry is recorded in order to afford him opportunity to explain the material brought in evidence against him and not with a view to get any admission from him. Thus, the question of examining the person under inquiry arises after the prosecution evidence is concluded. In cases whore the statement of the person under inquiry is recorded before recording the prosecution evidence after the close of the prosecution evidence, again his statement is to be recorded. But in the present case no statement of the appellant was recorded after receiving the prosecution evidence. He was thus not afforded any opportunity to explain the material brought against him in the prosecution evidence. The other defect is that no opportunity of cross‑examination was given to the appellant as there is no note at the end of the statements of the prosecution witnesses that an opportunity was given and that the appellant had refused to cross‑examine them. Likewise no opportunity of production of defence was given. The appellant did not make any statement that he did not want to produce any evidence in defence. No doubt, the appellant admitted before the learned lower Court that Exh. R‑1 was in his handwriting and was bearing his signatures but he did not say that he was its executant. A perusal of Exh. R‑1 does not show that the appellant had executed Exh. R‑

1. The contents of Exh. R‑1 arc, "On 18‑11‑1984 I had put intoxicating substance in the food by way of joke". The signatures of the appellant are, no doubt, present but the word "executant" does not appear to be in his handwriting. Likewise the words "witness No. 1 and witness No. 2" do not appear to have been written in the beginning and appear to have been added afterwards, therefore, possibility cannot be excluded that some one from the persons who were afterwards shown as witnesses had executed the document. The other thing is that there was no allegation in the charge‑sheet to the effect that the appellant had added some intoxicating drug in any food. Needless to say that extraneous matter, which is not included in the charge‑sheet, cannot be considered. The learned lower Court, therefore, erred in relying upon Exh. R‑1 which was not relevant to the case.

3. So far as back benefits are concerned, the words, "I am jobless since being dismissed" appear to have been added afterwards and do not bear the initials of the learned Presiding Officer. The ribbon with which examination‑in- chief and cross‑examination was typed is different from the ribbon with which the words referred to above are typed. The words, "I am jobless since being dismissed" are brighter, whereas the examination‑in‑chief and cross‑examination is not so. It appears that these words were afterwards smuggled into the statement without the knowledge of the learned Presiding Officer.

4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the order of dismissal and the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the appellant is directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits. H.B.T./682/Lb. P Appeal accepted.