' I have given due weight to the contention of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their assistance. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted, that the occurrence took place on 12th September, 1981 while the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 11th July, 1982 which is belated one and according to law, he should have been served within a month of the alleged accident. He went on to argue, that the Enquiry Officer, did not conduct the enquiry in fair manner and Mr. Inayatullah who has allegedly explained the delay of the charge-sheet was not allowed to be cross-examined by the petitioner during the enquiry nor his statement was signed by the Enquiry Officer. In spite' of the fact that the statements of the other witnesses have been signed by him, therefore, the petitioner had been prejudiced in this regard. Mr. Inayatullah being an important witness should have been properly examined by the Enquiry Officer and the petitioner should have been given opportunity for cross-examining him if so, desired.
2. To explain the delay in issuing of the charge-sheet was the imcumbent duty of the respondent to prove by the said witness or other evidence, but for the reasons best known to the respondent it was not done so.
3. Apart from this Enquiry Officer has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that he did not allow the petitioner to cross-examine Inayatullah during the enquiry. Similarly he admitted, that he has not signed his statement. Anyhow I am convinced, that the parties cannot be saved from another round.
4. The result is, that in order to meet the ends of justice, the petition is accepted and the petitioner be re-instated with immediate effect, subject to fresh enquiry within three months, failing which the