2. The respondent was Grade II officer serving in Zonal Chief's ex---office. He tendered resignation on 15th July, 1979 relinquished the charge on the same day and took over in a foreign Bank after depositing one month notice. Since no charge-sheet was given it was therefore unknown what were the allegations against him. However in this dismissal order is dis--closed for the first time that the respondent had while posted as Manager, Ravi Road Branch, committed certain serious irregularities. The irregulari--ties alleged to have been committed were not disclosed even in the dismissal order P-20. There were certain objections and the respondent submitted his reply which is D-I. No inquiry was held, the order of dismissal therefore is illegal and the respondent was condemned unheard.
3. It has been also argued that the respondent is not covered by the definition of workman. He was II officer. He in his statement made in the learned Labour Court said that his duties were clerical. No rebuttal w produced. Learned counsel for the respondent has on the other hand's argued, that onus was upon the appellant which was not discharged as no evidence was proposed. He stands supported by the authority cited by him which is 1979 PLC 370.
Even if it be said that onus was upon the respondent it stood discharged when he stated that his duties were clerical. Onus shifted upon the appellant but no evidence worth the name was brought on the record by it.
4. In the circumstances discussed above the order of dismissal was rightly set aside. The service of the respondent stood terminated as soon as his resignation was submitted to the competent authority. The respon--dent never withdrew the resignation. The learned lower Court thus rightly directed the payment of all service benefits. There is no force in the appeal which is dismissed.