AGRICULTURAL ENGINEER, TALAGANG Versus GULZAR HUSSAIN

The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 31-5-1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. Rawalpindi, accepting the grievance petition of 1ho respondent for his reinstatement in service.

2. The learned lower Court has directed the reinstatement of the respondent on the ground that action was taken under the Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules meant for civil servants, whereas the respondent is not a civil servant. Merely citation of Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules is not sufficient to action could not be taken. If the allegations amount to misconduct under say that ding Orders Ordinance, 1968, action can be taken. The learned low has non said that the allegations did not come under any of the clauses Of Standing Order 15(3). Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that allegations arc vague. This point was not raised before the learned lower Court the judgment is silent. Charge No. (b) is to the effect that the respondent did not do any next from 1-1-1981 to 31-5-1981. At (cast regarding this charge can be prima facie said that is vague. Neglect of work prima facie amounts misconduct according to Standing Order 15(3)(i) of Standing Orders Ordinance 1968. So the case needs to be decided on merits and the order of dismissal could not be set aside on the ground given by the learned lower Court.

3. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court the case is remanded for decision on merits and other legal grounds if any.

A.E./1089/Lb. S.

Appeal accepted.