S. M. SALEEM Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR (POWER), WAPDA

This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 10‑8‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan.

2. The appellant was dismissed from service on account of being convicted in a criminal case in which he was sentenced to two years R.I. and fine by the trial Court but on appeal the punishment of imprisonment was set aside and the fine was enhanced to Rs. 5,000. The grievance of the appellant is that he was neither charge‑sheeted nor any inquiry was held against him. The learned lower Court has rightly said that this was not necessary. Rule 213‑B appearing on l page 90 of the Personnel Manual Volume‑I is clear on the point. It reads as under: --‑

"213. APPOINTMENT/ RETENTION IN SERVICE OF PERSONS CONVICTED IN A COURT OF LAW IN CRIMINAL CASES.‑‑

(a) ............

(b) A person already in service, who is convicted in a Court of law for a criminal offence, renders himself liable to dismissal by reasons of his conviction ‑but the question of retention in service rests with the authority competent to dismiss the particular category of staff to which the convicted person belongs. "

It is thus clear that where a railway employee has been convicted and punished by a Court of law of a criminal offence, he can be dismissed from service on account of his conviction. In subsidiary rule (ii) appended to rule 4 of Efficiency and Discipline Rules appearing on page 447 of the Personnel Manual Volume‑I, it is also provided that since an order of dismissal operates as a bar to re‑employment in Government service, it should not be issued unless the employee's guilt is established by clear and conclusive evidence. In other cases where there is circumstantial evidence as to the guilt, it should be open to the competent authority to consider the question of removal from service. The reading of rule 213‑B along with the subsidiary rule, referred to above, shows that before passing an order of dismissal the competent authority should consider the case and decide whether in the circumstances of the case, an order of removal from service short of dismissal would meet the ends of justice. The learned lower Court did not advert to this aspect of the case. The grievance petition, therefore, should have been admitted and after issuing notice 1 to the respondent and allowing the parties to produce evidence, it should have decided whether in the circumstances of the case an order of dismissal was justified or the respondent be asked to reconsider the matter so far as the quantum and kind of punishment to be awarded was concerned.

3. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded with the direction that after issuing process to the respondent and allowing it to file written statement, both the parties be afforded opportunity to produce evidence, if any, and the case be re‑decided.

A.E. /259/Lb. P

Appeal accepted.