MUHAMMAD ABBAS Versus UTILITY STORES CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD., ISLAMABAD
The decision dated 21‑5‑1985, recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.5. Faisalabad has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service was dismissed.
2. The allegation against the appellant was that he had misappropriated stocks of the stores worth Rs.52,022.23. After issuing charge‑sheet and holding inquiry the appellant was dismissed from service. It appears that the learned lower Court has not gone into the inquiry proceedings and the evidence produced during the inquiry. No opportunity of cross‑examination was afforded to the appellant. The statement of the witnesses was recorded in questions and answer and the record of the inquiry reveals that no opportunity of cross‑examination was afforded. There is no note that the appellant did not want to cross‑examine the witnesses. The statement of the appellant too was recorded in questions‑and‑answers, with the result that he did not get opportunity to explain the allegations made and the evidence produced against him. The learned lower Court wrongly says that it was not shown that the statement of the appellant was recorded before the examination of the prosecution witnesses. The appellant stated so in his statement made before the learned lower Court but the Inquiry Officer was not examined to rebut it. No opportunity of producing defence evidence was afforded. The appellant did not say that he did not want to examine any witness in defence.
3. An objection can be found in the grievance petition that the charge‑sheet was time‑barred, but the learned lower Court has not recorded any finding thereon. Charge‑sheet EXh.R.l is dated 29‑6‑1983 but it was served upon the appellant on 6‑9‑1983 as is evident from the date given under his signatures appearing on EXh.R.l in token of receiving the same. The date of report to the effect that there was shortage of Rs.52,022.23 is dated 15‑6‑1983. Thus, the charge‑sheet was delivered after about three months. This delay has not been explained.
4. The learned lower Court has failed to see that the charge‑sheet is vague, in as much as the missing articles the value of which has been assessed at Rs.52,022.23 were not mentioned. In the presence of these defects and the circumstances Dointed out above, the order of dismissal was not sustainable and, therefore, the grievance petition was wrongly dismissed.
5. So far as back benefits are concerned, the appellant did not assert that he after his dismissal remained jobless, so he is not entitled to the same.
6. As a result, the appeal is partly accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the appellant is directed to be re‑instated in service without back benefits.
A.E./92/Lb.P Appeal partly accepted.