' By an order, dated 21st January, 1980, the services of the respondent, who was employed as a Bus Conductor in the appellant-Corporation were terminated on the charge that he had not issued tickets to certain passengers on 4th March, 1979, who were found travelling in the bus of which he was the Conductor, though he had realized fare from them. The respondent challenged the orders of termination of his services before the lerned Vlth Labour Court, which has set aside the said orders and directed his re-instatement in service with back benefits.
2. The sole ground upon which the decision of the learned Labour Court is founded is that the Enquiry Officer was appointed by District Manager Urz Mohammad Abro, who had himself witnessed the incident relating to the misconduct of the respondent. Aggrieved by this decision the appellant-Corporation has come up in appeal to this Tribunal. It was conceded by Mr. Mian Mohammad Mushtaq, the learned counsel for the appellant Corporation, that 3 District Managers were involved in the proceedings against the respondent. They are (1) Murad Sheikh, who issued the charge-sheet to the respondent, (2) Urz Mohammad Abro, who appointed the Enquiry Officer, and (3) Syed Niaz Mohammad Shah, who issued the orders for the termination of service of the respondent. Clause (4) of Standing Order 15 requires that no order of dismissal shall be issued in respect of a workman unless the employer has instituted independent enquiries against the workman. No doubt, in the instant case, the respondent was not dismissed from service but since his services were terminated on the charge of misconduct, the procedure laid down in Standing Order 15 has to be followed, as provided in clause (5) of Standing Order 12. Where a witness to the act of misconduct appoints the Enquiry Officer, such appointment would at least be improper, as Enquiry Officer may be considered as a nominee of the witness. Such an irregularity could perhaps be overlooked where either there is no other authority competent to appoint the Enquiry Officer or the enquiry officer is really an independent person and not a subordinate of the person appointed by him. In the instant case, as already pointed out, there were 2 other District Managers who were competent to appoint the Enquiry Officer. Furthermore, it was frankly conceded Mr. Mian Muhammad Mushtaq that the Enquiry Officer, Salahuddin Fazlani, was a subordinte Urz Muhammad Abro who bad appointed him. The principle of natural justice that no person shall be Judge in his own cause would thus appear to be attracted in the circumstances of the case.
However, while the domestic enquiry held by Salahuddim Fazlani would appear to be at least improper and possibly invalid, as also the superstructure based on the said enquiry including the order of termination of services of the respondent, since this would not wash away the charges alleged against the respondent and the same could even now be enquired into in accordance with law, an option has to be given to the appellant-Corporation to hold a fresh enquiry in accordance with law against the respondent. Furthermore, the award of back benefits to the respondent should depend upon the result of such an enquiry, for if the charges against the respondent are established in a fair domestic enquiry, the respondent obviously would be disentitled to award of back benefits.
3. In the result, while upholding the order of the learned Labour Court for the re-instatement of the respondent, I would give an option to the appellant-Corporation to hold a fresh enquiry in accordance with law against the respondent and would make the award of back benefits to him dependent upon the holding of such an enquiry. In case the appellant-Corporation does not hold any enquiry against the respondent within 3 months from the date of this order, it would be construed that the appellant-Corporation has waived its right to hold such enquiry, and in that case, respondent would be entitled to full back benefits.