1. ' This is an application under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 filed by the applicant/petitioner for re- instatement, against the respondent. Briefly the facts are that the applicant was appointed on 29- 6-1981 as an operator fitter in the respondent-Company. On 2-1-1983 he was charge-sheeted by the Manager (Admn.) on the charges of misconduct and misbehaving with the X.E.N. The applicant denied all the charges in his explanation which was found unsatisfactory. An enquiry was held which was improper and held in a haphazard manner. The Enqury Officer did not conduct the enquiry impartially but was guided by the management and did not examine the material witnesses cited by the applicant. The applicant was not allowed to appoint a representative to assist him at the enquiry. The applicant was not allowed sufficient time to bring his witnesses. On 25-1-1984 the applicant went for personal hearing before Mr. A.H.Azmi, Manager (Admn.) finally on 1-2-1984 the applicant was dismissed from service. The petitioner thereafter served the respondent with a grievance notice on 14-2-1984 but the respondent paid no heed to it hence the present application on 3-4-1984.
2. ' The respondent on receipt of the notice put in their appearance and filed their Reply Statement on 19-4-1984 denying that the Enquiry Officer was biased or that the enquiry was not proper.
3. According to the respondent the applicant was required to be present on 12-1-1984 in the domestic enquiry to be held by Mr. M.H. Siddiqui, the Transport Officer. The applicant raised no objection on the appointment of the said person as Enquiry Officer either before the enquiry nor during the enquiry proceedings. It is further stated that on completion of the enquiry the applicant served with the second/final show-cause notice on 22-1-1984 with a view to afford an opportunity to submit his explanation thereto as well as personal hearing before the Manager (Admn.) and finally he was dismissed on 1-2-1984 after he availed of this opportunity. It is finally reiterated by the respondent that the allegation made by the respondent against the Enquiry Officer or the enquiry proceedings of not being legal are wrong. In fact the applicant had expressed that he did not wish to examine any witness in defence.
4. ' The applicant filed his own affidavit-in-evidence (Exh.3) and has produced in explanation to the charge-sheet (Exh.3/A). He has also produced the entire enquiry proceedings (Exh.3/B) and has admitted his signature on the proceedings. The applicant has also filed affidavitin-evidence of his witnesses viz. Khursheed Alam (Exh.4) and S.M. Shamim-ul-Haq (Exh.5). They have been cross- examined by the representative of the respondent Mr. Masood Mirza. The respondent has filed the affidavit-in-evidence of Muhammad Abdul Hafeez Azmi (Exh.6), Manager (Admn.) who has been cross-examined at length. He has produced the charge-sheet (Exh.6/A), Enquiry Report (Exh.6/B) and the final show-cause notice dated 22-1-1984 (Exh.6/C).
5. ' I have heard the learned representative of the respective parties and perused the record. I have also gone through the entire evidence on the record and the documents produced by the parties in evidence.
6. ' Admittedly, the enquiry proceedings have been signed 'by the applicant in confirmation. It has been admitted by the applicant that he had no objection to the appointment of Mr.M.H. Siddiqui as Enquiry Officer. He has also admitted in his cross-examination that the enquiry proceedings were recorded in Urdu and he had signed each page of the proceedings which he has produced in four pages as Exh.3/B. From the material available on record which established that the applicant was also given a personal hearing and then the dismissal order was passed.
7. ' The two witnesses examined by the applicant, namely, Khursheed Alam (Exh.4) and S.M. Shamim- ul-Haq (Exh.5) do not seem to have any personal knowledge nor they were present during the enquiry proceedings to witness the manner in which the enquiry was being conducted. They have categorically admitted that they have stated whatever was told to them by the applicant. Their evidence is hearsay and cannot be relied upon nor is of any help to the applicant.
8. ' From the perusal of the record appears that the applicant has not brought any material on the record to show that the enquiry was not held properly. On the other hand the witness of the respondent has said in his deposition (Exh.6) that the applicant had refused to produce any witness in his defence such suggestion by the applicant's representative has been denied by the Manager (Admn.) (Exh.6). Had there been any illegality during the enquiry proceeding, there was no reason for him to sign the enquiry proceedings. His signing itself indicates his satisfaction to the conduct of enquiry. After the enquiry the personal hearing has been given to the applicant which he has admitted. The final show-cause notice is also admitted. Under these circumstances the enquiry held against the petitioner is proper and the dismissal order also seems to be legal. The petitioner has failed to establish his case.
9. ' Consequently, I have no other alternative but to dismiss the application and so I do accordingly.