1. Ali Hussain Shah has filed the present petition under section 25-A of the' Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 against his dismissal against the National Bank of Pakistan, Abbottabad through its Vice-President. , The facts alleged in the petition are that the petitioner was a perma--nent workman and was performing duties of a driver in the respondent establishment. The petitioner was transferred by the Zonal Vice-President Chief Manager from the Zonal Office to the T.I.P., Haripur Branch of the respondent vide order of 16th February, 1978 On the same day the peti--tioner was suspended on the charges of misconduct by the same authority and was subsequently charge-sheeted on 18th February, 1978. On 23rd February, 1978 the petitioner was required to submit his explanation to the charge-sheet and also to report for duty at T.I.P Branch of the respon--dent. The Manager, T.I.P.
2. Branch of the respondent issued a memo. To the petitioner and required him to submit his reply to the charge-sheet. The T.I.P. Branch Manager directed the petitioner to appear before the Bank Medical Officer but in the meantime the petitioner was ordered to appear before the Enquiry Officer, which order was not communicated to the petitioner. On 13th August, 1978 Assistant Vice=President of the respondent from the Principal Office Peshawar issued a staff order whereby the petitioner's services were terminated on the charges to have been proved against the petitioner. So the services of the petitioner were terminated on 13th August, 1978. The Manager of the T. I. P. Branch of the respondent informed the petitioner through a telegram to appear before the Enquiry Officer in (Sic) connection with the enquiry on 23rd August, 1978 which telegram was also confirmed by post. The petitioner's grievance notice went un-responded.
3. The petitioner has averred that the impugned order of his termination has got no force under the law as the charges levelled against the petitioner have not been enquired into and that whereas the termination order was dated 13th August, 1978, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer, on 23rd August, 1978 which clearly shows that the termi--nation order preceded the enquiry even if held. No impartial and inde--pendent enquiry was even held against the petitioner.
4. The order of trans--fer and suspension are malicious. The impugned order is against the principle of natural justice, equity and fairness and hence is not maintainable: Exh. PW1/1 is the copy of the transfer order, dated 16th February, 1978 whereby the petitioner was transferred by Vice-President/Chief Manager to T.I.P. Branch. This order was passed by the Zo-ial Office. Exh. PWI/2 is the suspension order even date and the petitioner was suspended on account of his most ugly behaviour against the Manager Administration. Exh. PW1/3 is the charge-sheet. The charges levelled in the charge-sheet are unauthorised absence without submitting any explanation when demanded. Moreover the petitioner allegedly misconducted himself when the Manager Administration personally asked about his absence on 16th February, 1978 The second charge levelled against the petitioner is that he has sub--mitted a bogus bill of Rs. 125 being stitching charges of uniform supplied to the petitioner for the then winter season. On payment of this bill too he entered into altercation with the Manager Administration and used abusive and filthy language against him. He also attempted to attack the Manager Administration but was stopped by Mr. Miskeen Gul, Clerk and Shah Nawaz Hussain .Clerk. On this score when, he was transferred on 16th February, 1978 to T UP. Haripur he refused to receive the transfer order and behaved in abusive manner with Mr. Aurangzeb Dealing Clerk des--patch section who asked him to receive his transfer orders. Exh. PWI./4 is the memorandum sent to him by the Vice-President /Chief Manager. T.I P. Branch Exh. PWI/4 is an identical memorandum. Exh. PW1/6 is the copy of the staff order wherein it has been stated that after a thorough enquiry made against the petitioner under suspension he has been found guilty of miscon--duct, absence from duty, show of aggressive attitude towards the Manager Administration and also showed, insubordination to his superiors. This order is dated 13th August, 1978. Exh. PWI/? Is the copy of the telegram. Dated 23rd August, 1978 wherein he has been directed to report for duty immediately on receipt of telegram in connection with enquiry being held against the petitioner. Exh. PW1!8 is the copy of the appeal /grievance notice by the respondent which has not been replied to. All the charges leveled in the petition have been denied in . The written statement filed in the court.
5. Evidence of the parties has been recorded. Arguments 'heard and record perused.
6. The petitioner has substantiated what he has alleged in the petition He has stated that he was transferred to T.I.P. Branch by order, dated 16 February, 1978, copy Exh. PWI/1. By an order of the same date, copy Exh. PWI/2 the petitioner was suspended for charges of misconduct. Charge-- sheet Exh. PWI/3 was served on him. He was directed to furnish explana--tion to the charge-sheet.
7. Exh. PWI/4 is the copy of the order through which he was directed to report for duty. He resumed duty at T.I. P. Branch .Where the Manager issued to him a memo. Requiring him to submit his reply to the charge-sheet. Copy of the memo. Is Exh. PW1/5. In the meantime he was also asked to appear before the Enquiry Officer, but no enquiry was held against him, Later on he received the impugned order. Later on a telegram came to him asking him to appear before the Enquiry Officer, copy of which is Exh. P.1/7. Copy of the grievance notice is Exh. PW1/8. The petitioner has alleged that his services have been maliciously terminated without enquiry due to his enmity with one Taj Mohammed Vice-President of the zone with whom he has got estranged relations. He has admitted that he has given statement Exh. DX. Comprising three pages but that was done in connection with compromise which Afsai Khan, had promised to effect between the petitioner and the Manager. This Afsar Khan was the friend of Taj Mohammed, Yusaf Shah, Miskeen Gul, Shah Nawaz, Hussain Shah and Ghulam Farid were the staff of the Zonal Office and are subordinate toth Mr. Taj Muhammad. The petitioner claims that he never appeared before Afsar Khan in the enquiry.
8. The statement of these witnesses were not recorded in his presence nor these were read out to him. He denies having brought any bill from the Tailor pertaining to the stitching charges of his uniform. According to the petitioner the bill was brought by the Tailor himself. He denied having demanded the money on the Tailors bill for his uniform from Farid. He denied having quarreled with Farid in this connection and alleged that the case has been concocted against him.
9. Evidence of the parties indicates and it is clear from the statement of RW2 that the Enquiry Officer himself was witness that the enquiry was conducted by him and the statement Exh. RW2/2 was written by the witness on 16th February, 1978 and was submitted to. The Enquiry Officer, .That the statement was not recorded by the Enquiry Officer, himself, that the peti--tioner was not allowed to produce his defence, that the enquiry was con--sidered affair, that the enquiry report does not recommend any action to be taken against the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer, that the statement of the petitioner was recorded by the Enquiry Officer in a very strange manner and that the entire enquiry was held against the provisions of law and against the requirements of natural justice.
10. RWI has admitted that he had orally called the explanation of the petitioner for his absence which he could not have. If anything has been said by the petitioner at all in reply to the oral explanation it was invited by the Administration Officer. He should have asked for the written ex--planation of the petitioner for his absence. The respondent have not proved even the absence of the petitioner on 16th February, 1978. The -prejudice against the petitioner is evident from the fact that straightaway on the complaint alleged by the Administration Manager, immediate transfer order of the petitioner was passed on the same complaint. The charge with regard to the stitching bill is also false because after having allegedly picked quarrel with Administration Manager the petitioner could not have under any circumstances submit the stitching bills at that time. Moreover the witness admits that the petitioner was wearing uniform but says that it was an old one which has not been otherwise proved. Moreover the witness admits that the bill could not have been presented to him directly. It should have been presented through the dealing clerk (Sic). Thus the entire evidence against the petitioner is concocted and false and no credence can be placed on this evidence.