' Muhammad Nawaz, appellant was employed as conductor in P. U. T. C., Kot Lakhpat, Lahore. On 22-10-1979 his bus was checked and it was found that he had realised fare from two lady passengers but had not issued tickets to them. It was further found that he had an excess cash of Rs, 18.25, with him. Form T. T. 40 was issued to him. In his reply he denied the allegations. He was charge-sheeted but he submitted no reply to it. An Enquiry was held against him and he was found guilty by the Enquiry Officer. After final show-cause notice and giving him an opportunity of personal hearing, the appellant was dismissed from service w. e. f. 14-1-1980. After serving grievance notice he filed a petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before the Punjab Labour Court No. 1 Lahore. He himself appeared as his own witness before the Labour Court while the Management relied upon the entire record of enquiry proceedings and closed their case. The Labour Court vide impugned decision dated 25-5-1980 dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal.
2.- I have heard at length the counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire material available on the record.
3. The main argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the District Manager while passing the dismissal order (Exh. D-16) has also considered extraneous material which was neither mentioned in the chargcsheet nor taken up during the enquiry proceedings. In the charge-sheet there were two allegations against the appellant, namely, that after realising fare from two lady passengers he did not issue tickets to them and that he had an excess cash of Rs, 18.25 with him.
The Enquiry Officer vide his enquiry report found the appellant guilty only of the above two charges.
However the District Manager in the impugned dismissal order (Exh. D-16) in addition to above, mentioned two charges has also mentioned that the income record of the appellant was also very poor. It is an admitted fact that the allegation of his income record being poor was neither mentioned in the charge-sheet nor was the subject matter before the enquiry officer.
Consequently there is no material placed on the record by the parties regarding the income record of the appellant being very poor. The appellant was not given any A opportunity to rebut this allegation and defend himself against this allegation.' To this extent he has been condemend unheard by the District Manager.I According to Mr. Shafiq-ul-Islam, learned counsel for the respondent corporation this was just a passing reference made by the employer in dismissal order otherwise this fact has neither influenced his mind nor caused any prejudice to the appellant. ##TSE# According to him the remaining two charges which stood fully established against the appellant were sufficient to dismiss the appellant. It is difficult for the Court to Judge how for this circumstance has influenced the mind of the District Manager while passing the impugned dismissal order. Similarly it is not possible to ascertain exact prejudice caused to the appellant, but it must have caused some prejudiced to his case. Reliance in this behalf can safely be placed upon the following observations of their Lordship of the Supreme Court in Islamabad Club's case: "The contention that at least one item of misconduct found against the respondent by the Inquiry Officer was included in the charge-sheet and this could have sufficed for the respondent's dismissal, is fallacious, as it is possible that the administrator may not have dismissed the respondent if the only charge proved against him was that he had held union meeting during working hours without proper permission. From the order of dismissal recorded by the Administrator, it is manifest that he was influenced by the seriousness of the other matters relating to the conduct of the respondent. To this extent, therefore, the order of dismissal clearly stood vitiated as it proceeded on matters extraneous to the charge framed against the respondent, who did not have a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in that behalf."
4. In view of the above this appeal is accepted the impugned decision of the Labour Court is set aside and the respondent corporation is directed to reinstate the appellant in service immediately without back benefits. It would however, be open to the employer (District Manager) to proceed afresh against Muhammad Nawaz, appellant in accordance with law, after keeping into consideration only the allegations contained in the charge-sheet and proved before the Enquiry Officer. NLR 1981 Lab. 1