The respondent, who at the relevant time was posted as fireman, Loco--shed, Mirpurkhas, was charge-sheeted, vide show-cause notice dated 12th November, 1979 for unauthorized occupation of quarter No. L-64/13, and was removed from service on the said charges with effect from 14th October, 1980, vide notice, dated l2nd October, 1980. He challenged the imposition of the said penalty on him through a grievance petition filed before the learned VIth Labour Court . The learned Labour Court by its decision, given on 14th March, 1982, allowed the respondent's grievance petition and has directed his re-instatement in service with full back benefits. The learned Labour Court teas based its decision on 2 grounds, firstly, that the domestic enquiry, on the basis of which the respondent was removed from service, was invalid in that though the enquiry was to be conducted by a committee of 3 officers, it was in fact conducted only by one officer, while the remaining 2 officers merely agreed to the enquiry report, and secondly, that the act of the respondent in occupying Quarter No. L-64/13 did not constitute misconduct for the purpose of Standing Order 15.
2. It was contended by Mr. Iqbal Hussain Jafri, the learned counsel for the railway administration, that the respondent admittedly was allotted Quarter No. L-64/A but he unauthorizedly occupied Quarter No. L-64/13, which is a large quarter and was meant for higher category of staff. He further submitted that unauthorized occupation of Railway quarter by a railway servant is an act subversive of discipline and hence constitutes mis--conduct under Standing Order 15. If the respondent in fact had occupied Quarter No. L-64/13, not only unauthorizedly but forcibly, as alleged in the charge-sheet, then unquestionably the act of the respondent was subversive of discipline, since not only the respondent was not entitled to occupy the said quarter but his action was in defiance of the orders and rules governing allotment of railway accommodation. If any official is allowed to remain in unauthorized occupation of railway accommodation, without any action being taken against him, it will certainly prejudice seriously the discipline in the whole of the railway department. It was, however, urged by Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, the learned counsel for respondent employee, that the respondent in fact had occupied the quarter in question with permission. In support of his contention, the learned counsel invited my attention to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the report of the departmental enquiry committee. A perusal of the said paragraphs indicates that the respondent had first occupied Quarter No. L-64/13 and thereafter had requested the then L. F. O., Mr. Azizul Hassan, to allow his family to stay in that quarter for one month only as his own Quarter No. L-64/A, had started leaking due to rain. The report of the enquiry committee further indicates that L. F. O. Azizul Hassan had allowed the respondent to remain in possession of Quarter No. L-64/13 for one month only, but after the expiry of the said month, the respondent had unauthorizedly continued to occupy the said quarter. Now, in the first place, it is not known on what material the above assertions have been made in the report of the Enquiry Committee. Neither the statement of the then L. F. O., Azizul Hassan, nor any other written or oral evidence has been brought on record to indicate that in fact the respondent had been allowed to occupy Quarter No. L-64/13. Furthermore, even if there had been evidence to indicate that L. F. O. Azizul . Hassan had allowed the respondent to occupy the said quarter, the question would arise whether he was competent to allot the quarter to the respondent or even to allow him to occupy it temporarily.
Moreover, as would appear from the record of the enquiry committee, the respondent first occupied the quarter in question unauthorizedly and thereafter sought permission from Azizul Hassan for tempora--rily remaining in occupation of it only for one month. It is an admitted position that after the expiry of the said one month, the respondent conti--nued in the occupation of the said quarter. Therefore, there would be some evidence in support of the allegation against the respondent that he had occupied the quarter in question unauthorizedly. I would, however, refrain from expressing any final opinion in this behalf in view of the order which I propose to make in this appeal.
3. The very material question which falls to he determined in the .Instant case is whether the domestic enquiry on the basic of which the respondent has been removed from service was valid and proper. It was not disputed by Mr. Jafri that the enquiry had to be conducted by a commit-- tee of 3 officers. However, the positron is that it was conducted only by one officer and he alone appears to have signed the report. A report signed by one officer cannot be considered to be the report of the enquiry committee of 3 officers nor can the proceedings taken by one of the members of the committee be considered to be enquiry proceedings by the committee. As such the enquiry proceedings were in contravention of the directions given for holding of the enquiry and the railway administration should have taken due notice of this violation of the orders by the members of the committee and taken appropriate action against them. . In any case, the report submitted by one officer should not have been made the basis of the removal of the respondent, since it cannot be considered to be the report of the enquiry committee which was set up by the railway administration.
4. In view of the above circumstances, I would uphold the findings of the learned Labour Court that the order of removal from service of the respon--dent was invalid and would agree with its directions that the respondent be re-instated in service. However. Since there appears to be some material in support of the allegation against the respondent that he had unauthorised) occupied and is still continuing to remain in occupation of Quarter No L-64/13, I will give an option to the railway administration to hold a fresh enquiry to determine the guilt of the respondent and to pass an appropriate order on the basis of a proper fresh enquiry. The award of back benefits to the respondent would depend upon the result of such fresh enquiry. The fresh enquiry should be initiated within two months from the date of this order. If the enquiry is not initiated with the said period it will be assumed that the railway administration has waived in sight to hold enquiry against the respondent and in that case the respondent will be entitled full back benefits.
5. Before parting with this Judgment, 1 would like to refer to the statement of Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi that a Civil Suit has been filed by the respondent in which he has obtained an Injunction against the railway administration in respect of Quarter No. L-64/13. The Injunction only prohibits the railway administration from disturbing the occupation of the respondent of the quarter in question. It does not prohibit the railway administration from taking departmental proceedings against the respondent. Furthermore it is not known whether the injunction is still in force, and if so, in what form. ;