' This application has been moved by Rahimullah employed as Driver in the Transport Department in the Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Limited under section 6 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 praying that the order dated 12th December, 1978 dismissing his services may be set aside on the ground that no valid show-cause notice for dismissing this services was served on him. The show-cause notice dated 3rd September, 1978 served on the applicant contained allegations that the inspection team detected the following damages worth Rs, 2,300 in the Jeep of the Company which was in possession of the applicant :- {{TABLE}}
(1) Connected Rod 1
(2) Piston with Ring & Pin3
(3) Bearing 5
(4) Oil Seal 5
(5) Connecting rod bearing small & large3 sets.
(6) G/H Nil 1 ' It was alleged that the above damage was caused to the vehicle due to his engligence. It was also alleged that he was careless and rude in behaviour with the Group Officer of the Store Department where he was at present working. In the said show-cause notice he was asked to explain why the estimated cost should not be recovered from him under section 10(1) of the Payment of Wages., Act, 1936. In this way the applicant alleged that no show-cause notice for dismissing his services was served on him. The applicant further alleged that the report of the inspection wing was not supplied to him and that the allegation regarding carelessness was too general and vague. It lacked in necessary particulars to formulate a definite allegation with reference to date, time, month and year. It was also alleged that the allegation regarding his rude behaviour was also general and sweeping inasmuch as the date, time and other necessary particulars of his rule behaviour were not mentioned. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show- cause notice wherein he submitted that his duty is only to check oil, water and air pressure in the tyres. The applicant also denied that he misbehaved with any office at any time. A letter of enquiry directing him to appear before the Inquiry Officer regarding damage to the vehicle on 20th September, 1978 was received by him. He also alleged that no one was present on 20th September, 1978 excepting the petitioner before the Inquiry Officer. On 24th September, 1978 that statement of the petitioner was recorded in respect of allegations levelled against him and the enquiry proceedings were closed. The petitioner was then served a second show-cause notice on 29th October, 1978. The applicant gave a reply on 1st November, 1978 but his services were dismissed on 12th December, 1978. The petitioner served a grievance notice on 31st December, 1978 and on receiving no reply he moved an application to Sind Labour Court No, 4 Karachi on 28th February, 1979 but it was returned on 17th November, 1979 for presentation to the Specified Authority. He has challenged the dismissal order on the following grounds :
(1) The show-cause notice dated 3rd September, 1978 was illegal as it did not show any allegation which could be visited with the penalty of dismissal. It was contemplated for deduction of wages under section 10(1) of the Payment of Wages Act and hence the penalty of imposed dismissal being in excess of the show-cause is unlawful and without lawful jurisdiction.
(2) The enquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer offended against all norms and principles of natural justice and fair play and in fact the applicant has been punished on the basis of his own defence version.
(3) The allegations were not proved and no evidence except the statement of the applicant was recorded by the Inquiry Officer. The dismissal order is also illegal and bad for want of supply of alleged copy of statement of any complainant or complaints.
(4) The dismissal is in gross-violation of the mandatory procedure and provisions prescribed by the schedule of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Order)
Ordinance, 1980.
(5) The ,dismissal order is also illegal as it was not passed by a competent person.
2. In their comments the respondents have contended that the application is time barred. As stated above, the applicant had moved an application for the redress of his grievances before the Labour Court and after his 'application was returned, he presented the application to the Commission. As the applicant has shown good cause, the delay is condoned.
3. The respondents have simply denied the allegations but have not cared to explain in detail the serious lapses on their part in their reply statement, the parties have not led any evidence. The applicant has relied mainly on the copies of the documents. The respondents have not enclosed any documents with their reply statement. After a careful consideration of the case. I find that the dismissal order is bad in law as the applicant was not served with a show-cause notice calling his explanation why his services should not be terminated. ##TSE# In the absence of such a show- cause notice has been seriously prejudiced in his defence. As stated above in the show-cause notice, the applicant was asked to show cause why deduction of Rs, 2,300 may not be made from him for the alleged damages to the vehicle that was in the possession of the applicant. The applicant therefore went before the Inquiry Officer under a reasonable impression that he is contesting the show-cause notice for the deduction of damages. As far as the allegation of rude behaviour is concerned, I agreed with the contention of the applicant that it was too vague, general and sweeping as the date, time and place has not been mentioned. The finding of the Inquiry Officer regarding misbehaviour which does not discuss the evidence and is too vague is reproduced below :- "As regards charge of misbehave appearing in show-cause notice para. (d) the statement of D. M.
(Stores) Mr. M. Sharif Awan Group Head with two Storemen is enclosed as witness which shows that: he has misbehaved with Mr. Awan."
' Copy of the statements of the witnesses examined by the Inquiry Officer have not been produced by the respondents. Copy of the enquiry proceedings have also not been produced to show that witnesses were produced in the presence of the applicant before the Inquiry Officer. Even the dismissal order does not make any mention of the Standing Order under which the services of the applicant have been dismissed. As the services of the applicant have been dismissed without valid show-cause notice, I direct the respondent to re-instate him in service since the date of his dismissal. However, the period after the dismissal of the applicant shall be treated as leave without pay.