This is an appeal against the order of the learned Chairman, West Pakistan Industrial Court (Central Zone), Lahore dated Dec--ember 9, 1969, whereby the learned Chairman granted permission to the District Manager, Government Transport Service, Lyallpur to dismiss the appellant from service. The appellant was charge-- sheeted for misconduct and found guilty by the Domestic Enquiry Officer. The learned Court came to the conclusion that the Domestic Enquiry was fair, and impartial and in accordance with the principles. of natural justice. In the result he granted the permission already mentioned.
2. Mr. Naz, the learned Representative for the appellant contended in the first place that the impugned order is no order in law as the same has been given after over three months from the date that the arguments were heard. I he arguments of the parties were heard on 17th September 1969, and the order was passed on 9th December 1969. It is true that there is no justification for such a long delay in disposing of an application under section 37 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968. This long delay, however, cannot be a ground for allowing the appeal: The learned Representative can urge all the points that he desires before me. I would now dispose of the other points that Mr. Naz has raised.
3. In the second place it was very strenuously contended by Mr. Naz that the appellant being in the position of accused person should not have been called upon by the Enquiry Officer to prove his innocence. Ordinarily this contention would have much force. In the circumstances of the present case which I would presently, mention this contention cannot be accepted. The appellant was 11- charge-sheeted for maligning his, superior Officers that they took bribe and, favour those who greased their palm. In this connection it would be useful to make a reference to his conditional letter of resignation which he addressed to the District Manager on 14th September 1967. He stated in that letter that it was impossible for honest people to work under Officers who were taking bribe.
It was not possible for him to pay them. The allegation that the appellant made in this letter became the subject-matter of the charge-sheet. In this connection it would be useful to reproduce a few lines from his cross-- examination before the learned Industrial Court. These are as under:-- ---I agree that in my resignation, the only grievance mentioned by me is my transfer to Sheikhupura. I agree that in my resignation, I had mentioned that the officers helped only those workmen, who bribe them. I also agree that it is for the aforesaid reasons that my resignation was not accepted and I was called upon to explain. Before my transfer to Sheikhupura I made no complaint to any body against the ill-treatment of the officers nor did I level any allegation of corruption against them. It is a fact that for the allegations mentioned by me in my resignation, I was asked by the District Manager to substantiate them.--- It would appear from the admission made by the appellant before the learned Industrial. Court that the appellant admitted the allegation of corruption and bribery that he had made against his superiors. He also admitted that his resignation was not accepted as he was called to substantiate the allegations. Lastly it is clear that he had no complaint against his superior officers period to his transfer to Sheikhupura. It was only when he was transferred to Sheikhupura that he started making allegations of corruption and bribery against his superior officers. In view of the admission made by the appellant the question of prosecution leading any evidence to establish the charge against the appellant did not arise. The admitted position being that he bad accused his officers for bribe. It was, therefore, for him to substantiate his allegations.
4. In the third place Mr. Naz very strenuously contended that as officers of the department were prejudiced against the appellant the domestic enquiry cannot be said to be a fair one. In this connection the learned Representative particularly attacked the conduct of the Enquiry Officer, Mr. Abdul Karim, who was Assistant Traffic Manager.Mr. Naz, submitted that the appellant had produced before the Enquiry Officer a copy of the application that he had given to the Director Technical stating therein that he had no faith in the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer, therefore, should not have proceeded with the matter. There is not much force in this contention: Mr. Abdul Karim having been appointed as Enquiry Officer by the District Manager had no option except to proceed with the enquiry. He could stop enquiry only if he received orders from the District Manager or the Director. From a perusal of the report-submitted by the Enquiry Officer I find that he was fair in h1s enquiry. He gave number of opportunities to the appellant to prove the allegations he had made against the Officers. He could not substantiate the allegations that he made against his superiors. It appears from his statement before the Industrial Court that the appellant came to nurse grievance against his 'superiors only after he was transferred to Sheikhupura. He ventilated his feelings against his Officers by maligning them. Mr. Naz relied on 1967 PLC 768 in support of his contention that where there was enmity against an Enquiry Officer the enquiry was held to be bad.
It! that case it was established that there was a direct enmity between Amir the person charge- sheeted and the Enquiry Officer. In the present case I have gone through the cross-examination of the appellant Mans before the Industrial Court and there is nothing to suggest that, Govt. there was any direct enmity against the Enquiry Officer. The Tram Enquiry Officer admitted that the allegations that the appellant has made also referred to him. I have gone through the allegation that the appellant made in Exh. P.
2. There is no Khan, direct reference against Abdul Karim. Mr. Abdul Karim being a Appeal super-for officer of the appellant concluded that the allegations of Tribunal corruption made by the appellant were too general which would include him also. No instance has been pointed out in the cross-examination of Abdul Karim that he had enmity against the appellant.
5. For the reasons given above, I would maintain-the order of the learned Court and dismiss the appeal.