1999 PLP 198 (PLC)

Exhaustive decision dated 14‑4‑1996, having been rendered by Mr. Muhammad Akmal Qureshi, Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore, at Ferozewala, has been brought under challenge by the appellant Corporation, by way of an appeal filed in this forum under section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The learned Court below has accepted the grievance petition and set aside the order dated 11‑6‑1989, passed by the Corporation, dismissing Javaid Akhtar from service. His reinstatement with full back benefits has been ordered, and he has even been held entitled to payment of 'wages' for the period, during which he‑ had remained under suspension.

2. Javed Akhtar was an Assistant Purchase Inspector, having been employed by the Corporation on 15‑5‑1980. At the time of his removal from service, he was working with the office of the Project Manager, Chishtian. While he was Incharge of the Purchase Center, Jandwala, Bahawalnagar Zone, he was allegedly forced to undertake bogus billing by the Project Manager, Chishtian, Mian Muhammad Sharif, and he complained against latter's conduct and fraudulent acts to the higher Authorities, as a sequel to which, proceedings were initiated against him in a biased and vindictive manner, according to the employee, who had to face an enquiry of serious character. An Enquiry Board was constituted, which was headed by the Deputy General Manager (Field), Sahiwal Zone, A) probe into the allegations levelled by the official against Project Manager was to be conducted. There was a shortage of 901 bags of wheat in the Purchase Center, Jandwala. The President of the Enquiry Board had required the official and the officer both to appear before him on 4‑4‑1988, vide order dated 14‑3‑1998. The General Manager (Field), Head Office, Lahore suspended Javed Akhtar from his office. The enquiry held against him subsequently by the Deputy General Manager (Field), Sahiwal was characterised by Javaid Akhtar as sham and farcical. He says that copies of the enquiry proceedings and the enquiry report were not supplied to him. The officer appointed had no authority to charge‑sheet him and the contents of the charge‑sheet dated 17‑3‑1988 were false and misconceived. The enquiry was not properly and impartially conducted, and the Enquiry Officer was biased and hostile against him. All was done in a mala fide manner and schematically, under influence of Mian Muhammad Sharif, and with a view to save his skin. Opportunity of personal hearing was not afforded to him, and final show‑cause notice was also misconceived, containing conjectural and assumptive allegations, stated to have been proved against the official.

3. These are, however, usual pleas, which accused officials and employees generally take up in such matters, but there are no genuine and solid premises for canvassing the same. There is one pointed objection the same being that Mian Muhammad Sharif was involved in the "bungling", and he was made the prosecutors, in the enquiry held against the official. It is, however, to be noted that when he had detected the misdoings of the official, he was supposed to have been available in person in the proceedings of the enquiry and to have advocated the cause of the establishment, by placing before the Enquiry Board the whole spectrum and all the relevant facts and data, and the official could not possibly take exception to his presence and participation in the enquiry. The official had made a request for change of the Enquiry Officer, expressing no‑confidence in the person of Rai Zakir. It is, however, to be noted that this was the second request made for similar purpose, the prayer initially made in that behalf having been allowed to have sway. The official was obviously endeavouring to prolong the proceedings or to have a person of his choice and liking. Whosoever, reported against him was to be termed by him as biased and unfair. How could the establishment ask a person of the official's choice to hold the enquiry and make a report in his favour? In that event, the very purpose of the enquiry would have been defeated, and there was then no sense iii conducting the enquiry against the official. Thorough sifting of the evidentiary material had been undertaken and the official had been found guilty of the charges levelled against him, resulting in his removal from service. On 11‑6‑1989 he alone had appeared as a witness in support of his cause. Four persons, on the other side, had deposed against him; and there was documentary proof of his involvement in the 'scandal'. The charges were of monstrous character and exoneration of the official would have amounted to perpetuation of the mischief, to be repeated every time in frightening proportions.

4. Actually this person could not claim to be a worker, as he had 20/25 labourers working under him, besides a helper/assistant (Amir Hamza), and two chowkidars. He used to grant leave to his subordinates as Center Incharge. He was the sole signatory of the documents for receiving and releasing wheat stock, and used to single handedly sign and remit the scroll to the bank, for payment of bills. He enjoyed unfettered powers as Purchase Center Incharge. Administrative problems of public importance were the sole headache of the gentleman. By all means, he was acting in supervisory capacity, involving functions requiring mental alertness, and was doing no manual labour. Nature of his duties was not clerical either. He could, as such, have no access to a labour forum for redressal of his grievance, if any, and was expected to have availed of some other legal forums for achievement of his objectives.

5. I readily do not find the enquiry to be faulty, in any manner. He had fully participated therein, but he could not escape his arraignment and the indictment as he was fully involved in the foul‑play and had no explanation to offer for what he had been doing. It is to be specifically pointed out that Javaid Akhtar had actually admitted in his cross‑examination the charge and had given on 9‑2‑1988 in writing Exh. R.W.3/1, acknowledging the shortage in the stock, which he' said he would make good in due course. This was done by way of an affidavit, R.W.3/2, tendered on 29‑2‑1988. When it was put to him in the course of arguments, he only said that he was a poor, helpless person, and had no way out but to make confession. He had even undertaken that in case there was more shortfall, he would be liable to make good the same. I wonder why these pivotal documents and categorical admissions/undertakings have not been taken into account and have been brushed aside by the learned lower Court. Well, this is no explanation and no plea of innocence. Rather by having recourse to a Court of law, the official had endeavoured to wriggle out of the aforesaid commitment, and to come out of the dirt, in which he was entangled from head to bottom. Showing mercy to such a person would tantamount to being callously cruel to the dear homeland and its down‑trodden and powerty‑stricken people.

6. Amazingly the official has been awarded even the back benefits in entirety. The Court below was oblivious of the fact that he had caused to the National Exchequer loss of laks of rupees, for which he was wholly liable, and which amounts must be recovered from him, without further loss of time. I wish, he were also booked for a criminal charge, so that, if he is found guilty, he is awarded exemplary punishment, which serves as a deterrent to other people, working with no sense of responsibility, with no conscience of clarity or chastity, and having brain waves and criminal attitudes of satanic character.

7. I would undo the impugned decision, with the disdain it deserves, by accepting the appeal, with costs throughout. H.B.T./922/Lb.P Appeal accepted.