' The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent according to the case of the appellant, had stolen many bearing bolts on 28th May, 1978 which are alleged to have been recovered from his possession at the gate. He was charge-sheeted and an enquiry was held against him, which culminated in his dismissal.
2. The learned trial Judge has reinstated the respondent for the reason that the solitary eye- witness Sultan Ahmad, reporter, was not examined by the Enquiry Officer. Instead Safdar Hussain was examined, who did not claim to be the eye-witness of the theft. Rather he had stated that Sultan Ahmad had told him about the theft. The stand taken by the respondent was that he had not stolen the bolts but he had picked them for being used in the vehicle of the G. T. S. Which was under repair. Failure on the part of the prosecution to examine the solitary eye-witness was sufficient to reinstate the respondent. Only Sultan Ahmad could prove the charge. It is also alleged that when Sultan Ahmad asked the respondent not to commit theft of the bolts, the respondent had abused him. Since there was no other person present at that time, Sultan Ahmad could not be left over.
3. The representative of the respondent has argued that the present appeal is not competent inasmuch as neither it was signed nor presented by an authorised person. The memorandum of appeal bears the signatures of someone on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Sarfraz Abmad Sheikh, Law Officer. The appellant is P. R. T. B. Through its District Manager therefore, the appeal should have borne A the signatures of the District Manager. But since designation is not given, it cannot be said that it was signed by him. The person who signed the memorandum of appeal in the capacity of the appellant had no power of attorney as there is none with the appeal. Likewise, there is no power of attorney or letter of authority in favour of Mr. Sarfraz Abmad Sheikh, Law Officer.
4. For the reasons give above, the appeal is dismissed on merits as well as on the ground that it is not competent.