' The above-captioned appeal is directed against the decision, dated 16th January, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service was dismissed.
2. The appellant had made certain reports against the officers about misappropriations and irregularities and was dismissed. He was, however, reinstated. Now, the allegation is that he wrote letter Exh. D. 9 to Mr. S. K. A. Rehmani in which he called Rana Muhammad Akram a mischievous officer. He was charge-sheeted. Several attempts were made to serve the charge-sheet by registered post but in vain. Ultimately the charge-sheet was served on 22nd September, 1979 by Mr. Benno. His report is Exh. D. 26 to the effect that the appellant refused to receive it. Mr. Benno was accompanied by Mr. Muhammad Aslam, junior assistant, who recorded the report of Mr. Benno.
Copy of his letter accompanied by the charge-sheet was sent by registered post in envelop Exh. D.
J. Appearing at page 197 (in red ink) of the file but came back with the report of refusal. In the beginning the charge-sheet was sent on 28th July, 1979. Enquiry notice was sent for 3rd October, 1979 which is Exh. D.
23. The appellant refused to receive it. The report of Khadim Hussain who had taken the notice to the appellant in his office is Exh. D.
24. The appellant did not appear on 3rd October, 1979 before the enquiry officer. The enquiry was not held on 3rd October, 1979 in order to give another opportunity to the appellant to join the enquiry. The enquiry was adjourned to 10th October, 1979 and another notice of enquiry was sent by telegram. Copy of telegram Exh. D. 19 was taken by Khadim Hussain to the appellant in his office but he refused to receive it. Report of Khadim Hussain is Exh. D. 20, dated 6th October, 1979. It is at page 175 (in red ink) of the file. The appellant did not participate in the enquiry, so it was held ex parte. The statements of Mr. Benno, Mr. Muhammad Aslam and Mr. Khadim Hussain with regard to the service of charge-sheet, enquiry notice were duly recorded during the enquiry, so service of said documents was duly proved and ex parte enquiry was justified. Two witnesses Rana Muhammad Akram and Mr. Muhammad Iqbal, junior assistant, were examined during the enquiry to prove the charge.
3. So far as the service of charge-sheet is concerned, the appellant has in his statement made before the learned lower Court on 9th August, 1980 admitted its receipt in July, 1979. He, however, denied the receipt of enquiry notice. But by the evidence discussed above it stands proved that first enquiry notice for 3rd October, 1979 and the second enquiry notice for 10th October, 1979 both were served upon him. Mr. Khadim Hussain who had served the two notices appeared as D. W.
Before the learned lower Court and stated that the appellant bad refused to receive the notices.
4. As mentioned above in letter Exh. D. 9 the appellant called Rana Muhammad Akram, Personnel Officer, and a mischievous officer. These are contemptuous remarks and amount to insubordination and thus amount to misconduct. In arguments the appellant has laid great stress on the fact that he had duly informed the Management that he would be available at his residence before evening so every correspondence is made with him in his office. This is true but the charge- sheet and enquiry notices besides being sent at his home address by registered post were offered to him in his office also but as per evidence discussed above, his refusal stands employ proved. He was thus rightly dismissed and the learned lower Court was justified in dismissing his grievance petition.
5. As a result of what has been said above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss the same.