' Applicant Aurang Zaib has moved this grievance application for reinstatement in service of the respondent, for all the consequential benefits and for quashment of the proceedings resulting in his removal from service.
2. Admittedly the applicant joined service of the respondent on 8th November, 1969 as Helper. On 5th July, 1982 the applicant was issued charge-sheet copy R.3. As per the charge sheet on 5th July, 1982 at 9 a.m. The applicant made open demonstration of "ghoondaism" and violence in premises of respondent factory and caused injuries with stick to Azam Ali son of Zakir Ali and chased him with a view to further beat him. In this way the applicant was alleged to have created panic and fear in the entire factory. Applicant submitted reply copy R. 4 wherein he denied the allegations.
Respondent issued enquiry letter copy R. 6 appointing Iftikhar Ahmed to hold enquiry against the applicant. Iftikhar Ahmed conducted the enquiry and recorded statements of witnesses Azam (R.
8) Muhammad Akram (R. 9) Niaz Muhammad (R. 10) and Muhammad Ayoob (R. 11). He also recorded statement copy R. 12 of the applicant and submitted enquiry report copy R. 13, dated 19th July, 1982. He found allegations mentioned in the charge-sheet against the applicant to be correct.
On 20th July, 1982 the applicant was issued second show-cause notice copy R.
14. He submitted his reply copy R.
15. Ultimately the applicant was dismissed from service under letter A/2 ,copy R. 16, dated 23rd July, 1982. Applicant sent to the respondent grievance notice copies A. 1 and R. 18 but the same was rejected under reply A. 3 copy R.
19. Hence this application.
3. In his grievance application, the applicant challenged the order about his dismissal to be illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction, void, biased, mala fide, nullity in law and of no .Legal effect.
Applicant denied having committed the misconduct attributed to him. He blamed Azam Ali for managing all the affairs including his removal from service. He added that no proper show-cause notice was issued to him and copies of relevant record were not supplied to him. That the statements of the witnesses examined in the enquiry were full of contradictions. That the Enquiry Officer was not impartial as he had given remarks which were irrelevant and untrue. Applicant further alleged that all the things were not written in his presence and that he being illiterate did not know as to what was being written and that the statements were not read over to him. He complained that he was given stick blows by Azam Ali who was not removed from service.
Applicant alleged that his witnesses were not examined by the Enquiry Officer and he was not given proper defence opportunity. Applicant had also grievance against the trade union which supported the management, being its pocket union.
4. Respondent in the reply statement raised legal objection that the applicant had ceased to be worker after his dismissal and hence his application was not maintainable. It was stated that there was only one trade union for workers of the respondent and the same was not a pocket union but an independent union. It was denied if action of the respondent was biased or mala fide. The impugned order was defended to be quite legal and bona fide. Applicant was said to have been given proper, full and repeated opportunity of defence according to the principles of natural justice. And equity. It was added that the misconduct mentioned in the charge-sheet was proved against the applicant in the enquiry. All relevant papers were said to have been supplied to the applicant as per requirements of law. Enquiry Officer was said to be independent and impartial. He was said to have written and recorded everything stated before him in presence of the applicant, who was read over each statement recorded. Rest of the allegations were denied. In the additional pleadings the respondent mentioned certain other facts which do not appear to be relevant to this case.
5. Parties adduced evidence and their counsel were heard.
6. Mr. Taqvi challenged the domestic enquiry to be illegal on the ground that it was jointly conducted against the applicant and Azam Ali. Letter copy R. 6 does not show if Iftikhar Ahmed was appointed as Enquiry Officer in respect of Azam All also. Azam Ali was not charge-sheeted and thus there could not be domestic enquiry against him. Enquiry Officer Iftikhar Ahmed was examined in this Court as a witness. He stated that he was appointed as Enquiry Officer against the applicant.
He stated in cross that Azam All was connected with the enquiry against the applicant. That Azam Ali was absolved of the charges. That he submitted a single report in respect of Azam All and the applicant. Iftikhar Ahmed was not called upon to hold any enquiry against Azam Ali. Even if he conducted the enquiry against the applicant under the misconception that it was against Azam All also that would not affect legality of the enquiry. Mr. Ghani cited the case of Noor Silk Mills Limited v.
Yar All where it was held that a joint enquiry was not to be vitiated unless resulting in prejudice to the accused and miscarriage of justice. Hence no fault can be found with the enquiry.
7. Mr. Taqvi argued that the applicant was not allowed to cross- examine the witnesses in enquiry and that the statements recorded were not read over to him and that the applicant was not given a person to assist him. Applicant did not allege these things in his grievance notice copy A. 1 and hence as held in 1975 PLC 196, the points not raised in the grievance petition cannot be pressed before this Court. Applicant admitted in cross that he did not name anybody to be his nominee.
Consequently he cannot complain that he was not allowed to have a person to assist him.
Applicant admitted that the statements in the enquiry were recorded in his presence. In his reply copy R, 15 the applicant did not state that he was not allowed to cross examine the Witnesses although he has called the enquiry to be "so called enquiry." Enquiry Officer, Iftikhar Ahmed in his1 affidavit stated that the applicant himself did not cross-examine the witnesses, although asked.
Unfortunately in the statements copies R. 8 to R. 11 the Enquiry Officer did not mention if the applicant was given opportunity to cross-examine each of the witness. Iftikhar Ahmed stated in cross that all the statements recorded were read over to the applicant. In para. 5 of his affidavit he said that applicant never asked that the statements be read over to him. No fault is found in the conduct of domestic enquiry except that the Enquiry Officer should have mentioned in statement of each witnessed that opportunity to cross-examine that witness was given to the applicant.
8. Mr. Taqvi went very deep into statements of the witnesses examined in the enquiry and pointed out certain omissions and contradictions which do not appear to be material. If Ayoob does not say about beating he may not have seen physical beating. Azam Ali omitted to state in statement R. 8 that the applicant threatened to kill him although he said so in his complaint R.
2. This commission does not amount to contradiction. I do not find material contradictions in the statements examined in the enquiry. In this way charge of misconduct was proved against the applicant.
9. Mr. Taqvi cited Mustaq Ahmed Govt. Transport Service, Badami-bahg where dismissal order based on an enquiry in which no chance to(Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal) ' cross-examine the witnesses was given, was held not sustainable. This case could apply if the applicant was not given chance to cross-examine the witnesses. Reliance was also placed on 1979 PLC 10 where it was held that the Appellate Tribunal had power to permit production of additional evidence at appellate stage. This has no relevance to this case. Mi. Taqvi also cited Muhammad Ilyas v. Islamabad Omni Bus Service where the enquiry proceedings did not contain any material by which blame could be put simply on the workman who was accordingly re-instated. This decision was given by a Labour Court of Punjab in a case with facts materially different from this case. Applicant has not established if the Enquiry Officer was biased against him, and hence Nazar Muhammad v. Managing Director Multan Electric Supply Company Limited Multan cited by Mr. Taqvi, has no application.
10. Over and above this the applicant in his cross-examination admitted that he gave reply copy R.
4 and another reply copy R. 5 to the charge-sheet copy R/3. In reply copy R. 5 the applicant has admitted the incident and has admitted that on 5th July, 1982 there was a row between him and Azam Ali who gave him a push and gave him beating. This shows that the incident took place within the premises of the respondent factory. Applicant admitted in cross that he was given copies of the statements recorded in the enquiry. He admitted that he made no complaint in writing against the Enquiry Officer. This shows that action against the applicant was taken in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice.
11. In reply to objection by Mr. Taqvi that the Enquiry Officer was subordinate of the respondent Mr. Ghani cited decision of Sind High Court reported as Abdul Aziz Khan v.. Mls Pakistan Cables Ltd.
Karachi where Mr. Justice Channa held that the mere fact that the Enquiry Officer is an employee of the industry does not make him an independent or non-impartial person. Mr. Ghani also cited Mls Eastern Auto Mombiles v. Hakimuddin where proceedings in enquiry were not written by the Enquiry Officer and no exception was taken to that.
12. In view of the above discussion I hold that the action against the applicant was neither illegal nor ultra vires, nor contrary to principles of natural justice. I, therefore, dismiss his grievance application. 1969 PLC 216 1979 PLC 341 1980 PLC 61 1979 PLC 2502 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4