THE PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH VICE-CHAIRMAN, Versus ABDUL HAFEEZ

Abdul Hafeez, respondent was employed as Semi-Skilled Fitter in the lifting Shop of C&W Shop, Moghalpura. He was charged for misconduct inasmuch as, he was allegedly apprehended while stealing away Copper Wire belonging to the Railways by the Watch and Ward Staff on 19 th May 1972. An enquiry was held into the charge and ultimately vide order of A. W. M. C. & W. Shops, Moghalpura dated 18th October, 1972 the respondent was removed from service.

2. The respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was rejected by the said Authority vide its order dated 21st December, 1972. On 29th August, 1973 the respondent filed an application before the Junior Labour Court No.1, Lahore under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 seeking his re-instatement. He challenged the validity of the order of his removal fro-n service on the ground that the enquiry held, against him was not properly conducted and that he was not given opportunity of personal hearing b5 'the competent authority. He also contended that after the rejection of appeal by Works Manager and the Divisional Superintendent he preferred an appeal before the Higher Authorities but no decision was taken on the said appeal.

3: The appellant resisted the respondent's petition before the learned Lower Court and pleaded that the respondent was removed from service in accordance with law after observing all the prescribed formalities and after having been afforded full opportunity to defend himself.

4. Abdul Hafeez respondent appeared as his own witness and he also examined one Muhammad Bakar Qasid who acted as his counsel before the Enquiry Committee. In rebuttal Muhammad Akbar Ali incharge Litigation of the office of Divisional Superintendent Workshop appeared on behalf of the Railways. Documents Exhs. R. 1 to R. 24 relating to the enquiry proceedings and the order of removal from service and the orders made in appeal have also been produced by the appellant.

5. After considering the parties evidence the learned Lower Court concluded that since the respondent was not given opportunity of personal hearing therefore he was not given an opportunity to defend himself. Consequently the order of his removal from service dated 18th October 1972 was set side by the lower Court and he was ordered to be re-instated with full back benefits by order dated 24th April, 1974 which has been impugned through the present appeal.

6. A careful perusal of the verbal as well as documentary evidence led by the parties before the Lower Court leads to an unrebuttal conclusion that the respondent was duly charge-sheeted for misconducts, he was allegedly caught red-banded while stealing away the property belonging to Railways. His reply to the charge-sheet was not considered satisfactory. An enquiry committee was constituted and the respondent was informed accord ingly. He objected to the constitution of the Enquiry Committee. There upon another enquiry committee was constituted. The respondent as well as his defence counsel duly participated in enquiry proceedings. They cross -examined the witness who appeared against the respondent. Defence was also produced by them. The enquiry committee recorded findings of guilty against the respondent. The competent authority after considering the report of the enquiry committee served 2nd show-cause notice on the respon dent requiring him to show-cause as to why be not removed from service. The respondent replied to the show-cause notice and after considering his reply the competent authority ordered the removal of respondent from service. The respondent filed 2 appeals against the order of his removal from service which were also dismissed by Works Manager and the Divisional Superinten dent respectively. This is however admitted fact that the respondent was not personally heard by the competent authority before his removal from service was accorded. It is however noteworthy, the respondent while submitting reply to the show cause notice did not desire to be heard in person, the circumstances of this case show that the respondent was afforded sufficient opportunity to defend him and his non appearance before the removal from service would not appear to render the order of removal from service as wrongful or illegal. In Mahboob Ali Ansari v. The Secretary, Excise & Taxation Department, Government of the Sind, Karachi and 2 others ( 1972 P L C 54 ) it was held by the Sind & Baluchistan High Court that affording of personal bearing was not a necessary requirement in each and every case. The Govern ment servant who was served with a charge-sheet and who duly participated in the enquiry proceedings and was also served with a show-cause notice had no guaranteed right of personal hearing. Similar view was taken by the Lahore High Court in Mrs. Saeeda Tasneem Ara v. The Province of West Pakistan and others (P L D 1967 Lah. 112).

7. In the light of what has been said above, it is concluded that removal of the respondent from service was ordered in accordance with law and there is no illegality or infirmity with the said order of removal from service. I would therefore accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application filed by the respondent before the learned lower Court under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance.