' This is an application under section 25-A, I.R.O. With a request that the order of punishment administering a severe warning to the application be set aside. The brief facts leading to the case were that the applicant was the General Secretary of the C.B.A. Union. There had been an Industrial dispute pending between the union and the management and therefore the management had a grudge against the applicant. It so happened that the Commandant Embarkation Headquarters Karachi wrote a letter to the Director of the company complaining that a member of the company's staff, viz. The applicant Irian Hussain, had misbehaved with their client. The Commandant took exception to it and described the act as highly objectionable. The applicant was served with a charge-sheet, dated 11-9-1983 for misconduct under S.0.15(3). A regular domestic enquiry was held and the applicant was found guilty by the Enquiry Officer. In the meanwhile, it so happened that the applicant Irfan Hussain approached the Embarkation Headquarters and apologised for his conduct and obtained a letter from the Embarkation Headquarters and also from the complainant viz. Sepoy Aslam Pervaz to the effect that because the applicant had apologised and the misunderstanding had been removed, the matter be dropped. The applicant submitted the said letter before the Enquiry Officer and requested him to close the enquiry expressing that he would not cross-examine the remaining witness. The Enquiry Officer thereupon gave a finding of guilty and recommended that in view of the apology, a lenient view be taken and the applicant be let off with a warning. Accordingly the impugned order of warning was issued to the applicant. The applicant sent a grievance notice which was rejected with a reply that the applicant should rather be thankful to the management that he was let off without punishment. Dissatisfied with the said reply, the applicant moved the Court and challenged the order on the grounds that:-
(i) He was not allowed assistance of a co-worker,
(ii) He was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses,
(iii) He was not allowed to lead defence, and
(iv) The enquiry was not held in a fair and impartial manner.
2. The respondents denied the allegations. The case of the respondents was that a warning was not a punishment and therefore, the applicant had no cause of action; and the application was not maintainable because none of his guaranteed or secured rights was infringed. It was further asserted that the enquiry was perfectly fair and legal and the guilt of the accused was brought home to him. It was contended that the applicant had himself requested that the enquiry be closed (without leading defence and without cross-examining the remaining witness) under the impression that because the Embarkation Headquarters had withdrawn the complaint, there remained nothing in the enquiry and he would certainly be let off. The management, however, though that because the applicant had harmed their reputation by misbehaving with their clients, it was necessary to administer a severe warning to him.
3. I have perused the evidence and also heard the learned counsel for the parties. The first and foremost objection raised by the respondents was that a warning was an administrative action and was not a punishment and therefore, the applicant had no cause of action and none of his secured or guaranteed rights was infringed. It will be relevant to describe the punishments as laid down under S.O. 15(2).
(i) Fine.
(ii) Withholding of increment or promotion.
(iii) Reduction to a lower post.
(iv) Dismissal.
None of the above-mentioned punishments was awarded to the applicant. It, therefore, meant that no punishment specified for misconduct was awarded to him. A warning was not described or even mentioned as a punishment under S.0.15.
4. In case there was no punishment for misconduct, the provisions of S.0.15(4) were not attracted. A simple reading of subsection (4) of 5.0.15 indicates that the requirements of charge-sheet, domestic enquiry etc. Are required in case of punishment of dismissal for any misconduct as described under S.0.15(3). For any other action under S.O. 15(1) no domestic enquiry was necessary.
If so, there was no question of any illegality or irregularity with respect to the domestic enquiry which was not called for, for the purposes of administering a warning. However, in the present case, I find that the enquiry was quite fairly conducted in a regular and legal manner. The applicant was served with a charge-sheet and witnesses were examined in his presence. He was offered an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. He was afforded assistance of a co-worker Abdul Karim and was requested to appoint any other co-worker because Abdul Karim had been put under suspension due to his unruly activities. The applicant did not appoint any other co-worker for his assistance, obviously because he himself was competent enough to face the enquiry being the General-Secretary of the Union and a literate person holding a clerical post. He voluntarily did not lead defence by specifically requesting that the enquiry be closed. In view of the said facts, it was mischievous to allege that the Enquiry Officer did not permit services of a co-worker or denied the opportunity of cross-examination or of leading defence.
5. To- give a warning to a clerk who misbehaved with a client, was an administrative action and not a punishment. No secured or guaranteed right of the applicant was infringed. There was absolutely no justification for annulling the letter of warning. The application is dismissed.