' This is an appeal against the decision, dated 9th January, 1978 of Punjab Labour Court No, 5, Faisalabad.
2. Khizer Hayat, appellant was employed as a Cooly in Telegraph Store Depot, Sargodha. On 8th December, 1976 a charge-sheet Exh. D-4 was issued to him as under :- "Mr. All son of Lal caste Baloch resident of Dokey P.
0. Chitta Baksha Tehsil and District Jhang changed his name as Khizer Hayat son of Lal Khan caste Baloch to get service in Telegraph Store ' Depot. Sargodha. This fact has been proved by the Superintendent of Police, Jhang.
' It is evident that Mr.-Ali son of Lal caste Baloch (now known by his changed name as Khizer Hayat son of Lal Khan caste Baloch) fraudulently changed his name to hide his past misdeeds.
' Following charges are, therefore, framed against him which have been considered prima facie appropriate : -
(1) Committing fraud with the Government to get service.
(2) Misconduct. and is, therefore, required to explain as to why penalty of removal from service should not be imposed upon him vis-a-vis above."
4. On 24th January, 1977 another charge-sheet Exh. D. 5 was issued to him as under :- "Mr. Muhammad Hussain, Head Cooly of this office has reported, on 14th December, 1976 that Khizer Hayat Cooly of this office refused to do his duty deliberately. Before his written complaint he had been asked several times to change his habit but he did not listen to anything. Even he tried to ruin the office discipline which is seriously viewed by the undersigned.
' Following charges are, therefore, framed against him which have been considered prima facie appropriate :-
(1) Disobeyance of the orders of his superiors.
(2) Spoiling office discipline.
(3) Misconduct. and is, therefore, required to explain as to why penalty of removal from service should not be imposed upon him vis-a-vis above."
4. On 1st February, 1977 a charge-sheet Exh. D. 6 was served on the appellant as under :- "Mr. Muhammad Yaqoob peon of this office has reported that on 29th January, 1977 he asked Mr. Khizer Hayat Cooly of this office to receive office letter which was meant for him. He refused to receive it from Mr. Muhammad Yaqoob Peon. He also misbehaved and uttered that {{URDU TEXT}} ' When he uttered these words Mr. Arshad Ali Shah. U. D. C. And Muhammad Azam, Foreman were present there. It has also been proved by their statements.
' Following charges are, therefore, framed against him which have been considered prima facie appropriate :-
(1) Disobeyance of the orders of the Officer incharge.
(2) Misconduct.
(3) Ruining office discipline. ' and is, therefore, called upon to explain as to why penalty of removal from service should not be imposed upon him vis-a-vis above,"
5. The appellant submitted his replies denying the allegations. His replies were found unsatisfactory and so an enquiry was instituted against him in respect of all the charges mentioned in the three charge-sheets. He participated in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer found all the charges in the three charge-sheets proved against him and as a result, thereof, he was removed from service, vide order dated 19th March, 1977.
6. The appellant challenged the order of his removal by way of a petition under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the Labour Court, which dismissed the same vide decision in appeal.
7. From the perusal of the afore-mentioned charge-sheets I find that the first two charge-sheets are absolutely vague and no details were given as to when the appellant committed the misconduct mentioned therein. In any case the allegations mentioned in the first charge-sheet did not amount to misconduct, because it was not shown as to how he had committed fraud by changing his name. The allegations contained in the third charge- A sheet, however do amount to misconduct. The Enquiry Officer found the appellant guilty on the assumption that all the three charge-sheets had been proved. Therefore, the order of removal from service based on the verdict of the Enquiry Officer was invalid. I am fortified in this view by the judgment in the case, Chan Pir Shah v. Congothene Chemical industrial Ltd. Etc. .
8. I, accordingly, accept the appeal, set aside the decision of the Labour Court and direct that the appellant be re-instated. Since the defect has been found in the enquiry proceedings, no back benefits can be granted. However, the respondent can hold an enquiry afresh on the basis of the third charge-sheet and if the appellant is found not guilty then alone he would be entitled to back benefits. 1981 PLC 9841 1