1976 PLP 794 (PLC(CS))

S.O.15(3)(h)

Misconduct-Levelling false and wild allegations of corruption and inefficiency against Manager in a letter addressed to Minister -Act subversive of discipline amounting to misconduct. A. H. Masood for Petitioner. Rana Abdul Hamid for Respondent. Tae petitioner Per. Shafqat Ahmed Chaudhry was employed as Accounts Assistant in the Electrical Division of Pakistan Engineering Company Limited. His services were terminated by way of dismissal on 23rd December 1974 by the Managing Director, Pakistan Engineering Company Limited on the charges of misconduct in so much as the petitioner had allegedly written a letter to the Federal Minister for Production with copies to others levelling wild allegations of corruption, inefficiency and embezzlement, etc. against the General Manager of Electrical Division of Pakistan Engineering Company Limited.

2. The petitioner filed application Exh. P W-1/I under section 25-A of the Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969, against the respondent viz. the Man aging Director, PECO Limited seeking the re-instatement with back benefits. It has been contended by the petitioner that the order of dismissal dated 23rd December 1974 was illegal and that the charges levelled against him did not constitute misconduct under Standing Order 15(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. He further alleged that he was not efforded with an opportunity to produce any defence and that Kausar Ali Shah who acted as an Arbitrator in the matter was not summoned to appear m a witness although the petitioner made an application in that behalf.

3. The respondent resisted the petition and pleaded inter alla that Pakistan Engineering Company Limited being a taken-over industry by the Government under the Economic Reforms Order, 1972, an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was not competent. On merits the respondent pleaded that the petitioner was duly charge-sheeted. He submitted reply to the charge-sheet. The independent inquiry was instituted and he was found guilty as a result of the enquiry. His dismissal was perfectly legal bona fide and in accordance with law.

4. Shafqat Ahmed, petitioner examined himself as P. W. 1 and also produced S. Kausar Ali Shah as P. W.

2. Shafqat Ahmed stated that inquiry was held against him. He was served with charge-sheet Exh. P. W. 1/3. He filed reply Exh. P. W. 1/4 to the charge-sheet. He also filed another reply dated 29th October 1974 Exh. P. W. 1/5. Enquiry was held. Exh. P. W.1/6 is a copy of the enquiry proceedings, Exh. P. W.4/7 is a copy of the enquiry report. He was served with a show-cause notice, copy whereof is Exh. P. W. 1/8. He filed. reply to the show-cause notice, copy of the same is Exh. P. W. 1 /9. He has further stated that he put an application Exh. P. W. 1/10 and P. W. 1/12 for examining S. Kausar Ali Shah but his request was not acceded to. S. Kausar Ali Shah stated that he was asked to use his good offices to settle the dispute between the parties. This witness in his capacity as General Secretary of Pakistan People's Party, Lahore sent for the petitioner insisted upon him that he should tender apology and that the petitioner had tendered apology at his instance. He admitted that he was not asked by the petitioner to appear as his witness at the enquiry.

5. In rebuttal the respondent, examined P. W. 1 Mr. Ata Ullah Khan who conducted the enquiry in this case and P. W. 2 S. Ahmed Ali Shah Gillani, Deputy Manager Administration. Mr. Ata Ullah stated that he was appointed Enquiry Officer vide Exh. R. W. I/I. He conducted enquiry in this case. Exh. P. W. 1/6 is the photo copy of the enquiry proceedings and Exh. P. W. 1/7 is the photo copy of his enquiry report. This witness has further stated that the petitioner participated in the enquiry proceeding. All witnesses were examined in the presence of the petitioner and he was afforded full opportunity to defend himself at the enquiry. He also stated that the petitioner had not requested him to examine S. Kausar Ali Shah. He rebutted the suggestion that the petitioner had not closed his evidence during the enquiry proceedings. S. Ahmed Ali Shah referred to certain documents relating to the enquiry proceedings conducted against the petitioner.

6. As regards the respondent's plea that the Pakistan Engineering Com pany Limited being a taken-over industry under the Economic Reform Orders an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was not competent against its Managing Director, it is observed that according to the provisions of the said order the action of taking over of the industry cannot be called in question in any Court. The Managing Director of such industry however is not immune from the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

7. As regards the pl- a of non-service of grievance notice the petitioner in this case has challenged his dismissal from service and therefore his case is, covered by the provisions of subsection (6) of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which are enforceable notwithstanding anything to 25-A ibid. In this view contrary contained in subsections (1) to (4) of section of the 25-A ibid. In this view of the matter service of the grievance notice as required rode section 25-A(1) is not necessary in a case where subsection (6) of section 25-A is applicable. So far as merits of the case are concerned, it is sufficiently established from the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties that the petitioner was duly charge sheeted of misconduct. He submitted his reply to the charge-sheet. Qualifying his reply to the charge-sheet he admitted that he had written letter containing wild allegations of corruption and inefficiency against the Manager to the Federal Minister for Production and that the said allegations were incorrect, he has written the letter on account of misunderstanding, it has also been proved on the record that an, independent enquiry was held. The petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings. He was held guilty by the Enquiry Officer. Subsequently he was served with a second show-cause notice. He submitted explanation to second show-cause notice. After considering his explanation to show-cause notice the respondent ordered his dismissal from the service. Non-examina tion of S. Kausar Ali Shah by the Enquiry Officer is not very material. S. Kausar Ali Shah has admitted that this matter was not referred to him for arbitration formally. The Enquiry Officer has stated that the petitioner did not request him to examine S. Kausar Ali Shah. In the light of the parties' evidence I find that the enquiry in this case has been duly held and the dismissal of the petitioner has been ordered after observing all the formalities prescribed by law.

8. The petitioner has alleged that the charges on account of which he has been dismissed did not constitute misconduct. I find little force in this contention of the petitioner. He is alleged to have conveyed wild allegations of corruption and inefficiency etc. to the Federal Minister for Production against the General Manager Incharge of Electrical Division. This is also on record that these allegations were factually incorrect. According to Standing Order 14 (3) (h) any act subversive of discipline constitutes misconduct. Making of wild and false allegations of corruption and inefficiency against the General Manager is certainly an act subversive of discipline on the C part of a workman within the meaning of Standing Order 15 (3) (h) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1969.

9. In the light of what has been said above we find no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner and the same is accordingly dismissed.