' I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent at length and have gone through the record carefully. The record would show, that the petitioner was charge-sheeted on the allegations that on 17th January, 1980 at 10.00 hours when he was driving Bus No, P. R.
B.-2958, from Rawalpindi to Peshawar, met an accident as a result, of which some persons were injured and some were found dead. The accident was alleged to be the result of the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner Muhammad Jan. Mr. Bashir Ahmad, A. T. M. Was deputed to inspect the spot and report the matter to the management who accordingly went to the venue of accident, on 17th January, 1980 and submitted his report. Thereafter R. W. 1 Mr. Ziaulhaq, appointed as Enquiry Officer who conducted the enquiry. During the enquiry proceedings, he examined Mr. Bashir Ahmed A. T. M. According to his statement copy Exh. R. W. 1/1, he gave the reasons of the accident to the following effect, Firstly, that it was wrong overtaking of the truck or some other moving machine by the driver of the Suzuki van who all of a sudden appeared before the bus coming from the opposite direction. The second reason advanced by him was, that the G. T. S. Bus driver (petitioner) when saw the van so close steered right with a high speed, he also applied brakes, but hit the van with the result that a pedestrian was killed and causing damage to the bus and causing the other casualties on the spot.
2. From his spot observation as well as his report and statement it is abundantly clear, that the petitioner was not the sole responsible for the said accident. But it was the Suzuki van driver who was wrongly overtaking the truck which ultimately resulted into the present accident, the enquiry officer has failed to consider this aspect of the case and burdened with all the responsibility referred to above the present petitioner. The petitioner being a human being had tried his best to avoid the headed collusion between the vehicles steered right his bus, which unfortunately met with the present accident. In such like circumstances I think, that the charge of negligence of work on his part is totally misconceived and h should have been exempted from the same. Similar statement given by the other witnesses is also ignord by the enquiry officer.
3. The petitioner's case is not ended here, yet there is another circumstance, which gives support to his case. The record would transpire, that Mr. Ziaul Hach was appointed as enquiry officer who summoned the petitioner for enquiry on 14th February, 1980 and thereafter adiourned the proceedings to different dates. He examined Mr. Bashir Ahmad. A. T. M. On 17th February, 1980 the petitioner on 19th February, 1980 and after recording other evidence and completion of enquiry, he submitted his final report on 1st March, 1980 wherein he has found the petitioner guilty for the offence surprising to see, that the respondent establishment waited till 27th September, 1982 and it was after more than 2 years that the petitioner was dismissed from services on 27th September, 1982. After the completion of the enquiry and report of the enquiry officer there was no need to wait for such a long time. By doing this one can easily presume that the dismissal order is not bona fide because even after the final report of the enquiry officer the petitioner was on duty. It is thus clear, that this belated dismissal throws doubt on the genuineness of the case of the respondent. They are not with clear hands, but for the reasons best known to the respondent the impugned order was passed later on. In this connection I have been fortified by a relevant authority reported in PLC 1970 page 244 which reads as under : - "(b) Industrial dispute domestic enquiry-Intervening period between report of enquiry officer and punishment-Two years failure in early action left unexplained-Inference drawn that management had no intention to punish accused after closure of enquiry."
4. Consequent upon the above discussion and above cited authority, the petition is accepted and the order, dated 27th September, 1982 is set aside. The petitioner be re-instated with immediate effect with all his back benefits and wages. No order as to costs.