Syed ASHIQ HUSSAIN SHAH Versus PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD

The order dated 16‑11‑1985 permitting the respondent to dismiss the petitioner is reported to be illegal and ultra vires.

2. On the allegation of misconduct the petitioner was charge sheeted and an inquiry was held in which the statement of the petitioner was recorded on 31‑12‑1980 but after three years on 14‑2‑1984 second show‑cause notice was served and petition under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was lodged on 13‑11‑1984.

3. The learned representative of the petitioner has raised many points such as the same District Manager issued charge‑sheet who has lodged F.I.R. and then brought complaint, that the inquiry officer did not past any order on the petition of the petitioner for summoning Ch. Niaz Ahmad for cross‑examination, that the learned lower Court refused to summon Tassadaq Hussain and Iftikhar Ahmad District Managers with record for cross‑examination, but I do not find any force. However, no opportunity of producing defence evidence was afforded to the petitioner in the inquiry. On 31‑12‑1981 the defence statement of the petitioner was recorded. Since the inquiry report is undated, it cannot be said after how much time it was prepared. If sometime elapsed the petitioner had opportunity to apply for defence evidence but if on the same date i.e. 31‑12‑1981 proceedings were finished then it was necessary to inquire from the petitioner if he wanted to produce evidence in defence and if he had stated in the negative only then the proceedings could be finalised. Since no opportunity of defence was afforded', no order of dismissal could be passed on the inquiry report. In these circumstances it was not proper to give permission to pass dismissal order.

4. As a result, the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned order of the learned lower Court, the petition given under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance is dismissed.

A. E. Revision accepted.