' Atta Muhammad, respondent, was a Relieving Station Master at Pervazwala. On 24-11-1977 while on duty he was checked and it was found that he had not nipped certain tickets with issuing nipper, while some other tickets were not stamped with dates. It was further found that he overcharged 10 paisas on each ticket. As was reported by the passengers. He was charge-sheeted (Exh. P-3) and his explanation to the charge-sheet (Exh. P-4) was found unsatisfactory. Form 'C'
(Exh. R-4) was issued to the respondent withholding his next increment for two years temporarily from the dates it fell due. The respondent claims to have filed a departmental appeal on 13-2-1978 (Exh. P-6) before the Divisional Commercial Officer, Railways, Multan, but without any success. After serving a grievance notice (Exh. P-8) the respondent approached the Labour Court under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. He himself appeared as his own witness before the Labour Court while the Management relied upon certain documents (Exhs. R-1 to R-5). The Labour Court vide impugned decision dated 14-4-1979 accepted the petition and set aside the impugned order. It was further observed that if the respondent had suffered any loss by way of stoppage of increment that should also be made good. The appellant-Railways feeling aggrieved with the impugned decision have filed the present appeal.
2. I have heard at length the counsel for the parties and have also perused the relevant material available on the record.
3. It is vehemently contended by Mr. Gulzar Ahmad Alvin, learned counsel for the appellants, that the grievance notice and the grievance petition were barred by time. In reply the counsel for the respondent argues that the respondent had submitted a departmental appeal (Exh. P-6) on 13-2- 1978 and the result of the same was communicated to him on 23-4-1978. In his own statement before the Labour Court the respondent has stated that on 23-4-1978 he received intimation regarding rejection of his departmental appeal at Kalanchwala Station through Railways Post and he made entry of that fact in the relevant register which reads as under:- "Received reply of Appeal No, C-12/195/77 of 3/78 by 171 up date Atta Muhammad RSM."
' The Management has not placed any material verbal or documentary to rebut this assertion of the respondent. The counsel for the appellants rather frankly admits that there is nothing on the record to contradict this assertion of the respondent. The relevant register contained the said entry dated 23-4-1978 has been placed on the record. In these circumstances, the Labour Court has rightly held the grievance notice and the grievance petition within time.
2. It is an admitted fact that no departmental enquiry was held against the respondent before imposing the penalty against him. The reason assigned by the Management for not holding the said enquiry is that since the respondent in his explanation (Exh. R-3) to the charge-sheet had admitted his guilt, no enquiry was necessary. However, a perusal of Exh. R-3 shows that it is not factually correct to say that the respondent admitted his guilt. No doubt be has admitted certain facts but at the same time he has categorically denied certain allegations against him. For example reply to the Charge No, 2 he has stated as under:- "Item No, 2.-The charge of the whole station is still with Mr. Ghulam Muhammad (being permanent A. S. M.) and I being the relieving staff did not take over the charge of the station. Hence the responsibility does not arise on my shoulders."
' Similarly he gave the following reply to Charge No, 3:- "Item No, 3.-The dating tool provided at this station is not in a proper working order. It was beyond my efforts for stamping on the tickets in clear impressions."
' Further his reply to Charge No, 5 reads as under:- "Item No, 5.-It was not done intentionally as I have never thought of any loss to the Railway Administration. When I came to know that the tickets were issued by me out of series, I immediately issued a .Message (copy enclosed for your kind perusal Pl) on phone addressed to S. M., Jahania copy to S. T. E. On train by M326 Dn and D. C. O./ MUL regarding the alleged incident. The cash of the tickets earning were remitted on the same date under CR Note No, 773033 of 28/11/77. The following comparison of earning figures regarding past and at my time will also clear my sincerity and honest working in increasing the station earning at Pervezwala Station. {{TABLE}} Rs, Rs, Rs, 13-11-77 64.85 14/11......
98.65 15/11.., ......
95.90 16-11-77 120.25 17/11 90.15 18/11.........75.35 19-11-77......
122.15 20/11 91.40 21/11_ ..
100.15 24-11-77......
138.60 25/11 276.30 26/11... ..
115.55 27-11-77.......
154.20 28/11 313.40 29/11... ..
143.15 30-11-77......
228.20 1/12/77 .
175.00."
5. From the perusal of Exh. R-3 it is therefore, obvious that the respondent had not admitted his guilt as alleged by the Management. He only admitted certain facts but had denied allegations levelled against him. In these circumstances it was, therefore, necessary to hold an enquiry before awarding punishment to the respondent. Admittedly no such enquiry was conducted against the respondent. The result is that the respondent was condemned unheard which is contrary to the departrnental rules and the principle of natural justice, The Labour Court, therefore, has rightly) accepted the grievance petition of the respondent. Accordingly, there is no force in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
6. Before parting with this case it may be observed that although the checking or raiding report against the respondent has not been placed on the record yet it is an admitted fact that the raiding officers were Divisional Superintendent and Divisional Commercial Officer. The departmental appeal of the respondent was also considered and rejected by the same Divisional Commercial Officer. Since he was the complainant and the prosecutor, he should not have dealt with the departmental appeal of the respondent, as it is well settled now that one cannot be a Judge in one's own cause. In such a situation where an officer has acted or taken part against an employee, such officer can act as prosecutor or witness but not as a Judge, otherwise the case of the employee will be materially prejudiced and he will be justified to entertain apprehension that justice will not be done to him. In the instant case the departmental appeal of the respondent submitted to the Divisional Commercial Officer should have been transferred or entrusted to some other appropriate officer or authority to avoid the apprehension of the respondent and to restore his confidence in the appellate authority. The appeal could easily be transferred to some other appropriate officer or authority to avoid this apprehension.
7. The result is that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.