This appeal arises from the decision dated 11th January, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, where--by the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. The allegation against the appellant was that he remained absent without leave from 6th May, 1979 to 8th December, 1979. He reported for duty on 9th December. 1979 when he was given charge-sheet Exh. R-2. He submitted his reply to the charge-sheet which was considered unsatisfactory and an enquiry was held against him which after the service of 2nd show--cause notice culminated in the termination of his services. The appellant had been making applications for leave on account of illness of his mother but they were not accepted and telegrams were sent seeking him to resume duty.
3. The charge-sheet was given by Mr. Abdul Hamid, Vice-President, Zonal Office, Lahore. The appointment letter of the appellant Exh. R-1 shows that he was appointed by the Senior Vice President, Head Office, Karachi. In the absence of any rule to the contrary charge-sheet, according to para. 258 (4) and (5) of the First Wage Commission Award, is to be issued by the competent authority who is always the appointing authority. Enquiry is to be ordered, second show-cause notice is to be issued and final order is to be passed by the same authority. No doubt the Vice- President, Zonal Office, Lahore was vide letter Exh. R-12 authorised by the Junior Vice---President, Personnel Office, Karachi, but firstly no authority was given to charge-sheet the appellant and secondly the charge-sheet was delivered to the appellant much before Exh: R-12 was issued by the Head Office, Karachi. The charge-sheet, therefore, was given, order of holding of enquiry was passed and the Enquiry Officer was appointed by an incompetent authority. The whole superstructure raised on the charge sheet therefore fell to the ground. No doubt the Zonal Office, Lahore was authorised by the Head Office vide Exh. R-12 but it does not appear that the Head Office has gone through the enquiry proceedings and the enquiry report. In Exh. R-12 reference is made to the letter of the Vice-President of the Zonal Office, Lahore but it is not mentioned that the enquiry record had been perused. I appears that the enquiry file was not sent to Karachi but the Vice- President, Zonal Office, Lahore had after perusing the file reported to the Head Office, Karachi that the charges had been established against the appellant. Letter Exh. R-12 is not sufficient to legalise the charge-sheet and the second shown cause notice. When law requires a particular act to be done in a particular, manner, that act should be done in that manner only. Since the competent authority neither issued charge-sheet, nor gave second show-cause notice, and nor after perusing the enquiry file independently decided that the offence had been brought home to the appellant, 'the latter was prejudiced. When one has leave to his credit, it should be allowed if he asks for it, otherwise there is no use of allowing right, of leave. Illness of mother was a sufficient ground. - Due to the absence of the appellant the work of the bank was not likely to suffer. Substitute could be appointed in the temporary leave vacancy of the appellant. I am confident that the Vice-President Head Office who is presumed to be senior and more reasonable would not have charge sheeted the appellant and ordered holding of enquiry against him. Do the high officers not require leave and do they not go on leave ? If they feel necessity of leave for themselves, why they should not be accommo--dating to their subordinates ?
4. As upshot of the observations made above. I find that the learned lower Court was not justified in dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant. I, therefore, accept the appeal and setting aside the order of termination and the impugned order of the learned lower Court, direct the re- instatement of the appellant. As the appellant has succeeded on technical grounds, he is not entitled to back benefits.