' This appeal arises from the decision, dated 12-7-1981 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,7, Gujranwala, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re- instatement in service was dismissed.
2. The appellant was L.D.C. The allegations against him were that in 15 cases he eraised the names and particulars of decided or cancelled applications for connections and against those numbers entered new petitions for connections instead of entering them at the bottom to show that they had been received earlier, that Petitions Nos,6001, 6020, 6024, 6141 and 6142 were for house connections but the appellant showed them as applications for shops and prepared estimates at the rate of houses, that he received and entered Applications Nos, 6567, 6586 and 6588 in the register without authority when the entry of these applications had been banned, that he entered Applications Nos, 6217, 6344, 6345, 6496 and 6497 without the approval of the S.D.O. Or S.D.C., that Application No,6034, dated 7-3-1979 was entered by the appellant in the name, which had been rubbed off and the columns of name and address were left blank, and lastly that two D.M.S. N.S. Against Accounts Nos, NR-1591 and B-827 were prepared by the appellant against Application No,6299 although the application of Saeed Ahmad son of Jhanda had been entered against this serial number in the service register. According to the respondent, the Executive Engineer held the enquiry, but neither any enquiry proceedings, nor any enquiry report is on the file. The charge- sheet was given by the S.D.O., whereas the order of dismissal was passed by the Executive Engineer.
There are two orders on the file one is of dismissal Exh.R.3 and the other of termination Exh.R.1. Since the orders of dismissal and termination were passed by the Executive Engineer, it means that he was the competent authority but the charge-sheet was given by the S.D.O., which was without jurisdiction. The appellant in his statement made before the learned lower Court stated that at the instance of the S.D.O. He had confessed his guilt. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that since the appellant admitted to have confessed his guilt, if there is any defect in the charge-sheet or in the enquiry, the same is immaterial and the order of termination cannot be interfered with. No reply to the charge-sheet is on the file. The S.D.O. Appeared as R.W.2 and deposed that the Executive Engineer had ordered to charge-sheet the appellant, whereupon he (the witness) prepared the charge-sheet. He also stated that the Executive Engineer had summoned the appellant for personal hearing. R.W.1 Muhammad Nawaz L.M-I stated that the enquiry was held by the Executive Engineer and the opportunity of personal hearing was given 'on the same day and that the same Executive Engineer had dismissed the appellant. The appellant in his examination-in-chief said that the allegations made against him were incorrect. His this part of statement read with what he said in cross-examination to the effect that at the instance of the S.D.O. He had confessed his guilt shows that the admission was not spontaneous. If in cross- examination the appellant had admitted that the charges were correct, of course what he stated in examination-in-chief that the allegations were incorrect could have been ignored. If it is said that in reality the enquiry was made against the Appellant, then since the enquiry was made by the same Executive Engineer who passed the final order of termination of the services, the order of termination was not legal. The Executive Engineer who held enquiry against him had made up his mind and thus the appellant was prejudiced by the order of dismissal/termination. No doubt, the S.D.O. Said that on the asking of the Executive Engineer he had prepared the charge-sheet, but no such order is on the file. The S.D.O., not being competent, the charge-sheet was not valid. Even if it be said that the Executive Engineer had considered the case and permitted the S.D.O. To charge- sheet the appellant, even then the appellant was prejudiced because the same authority who decided that the appellant be charge-sheeted, held the enquiry and passed the order of dismissal/termination. So, from whatever angle the case be seen, the order of dismissal/termination is not maintainable. Since in examination-in-chief the appellant had said that the charges were wrong, his admission at the instance of the S.D.O., not being spontaneous and under the inducement of the S.D.O. Is not reliable and I do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that on account of the said admission made by the appellant, the defects and illegalities committed while proceeding against the appellant can be ignored. The other thing is that this is not understandable why two orders were passed--one of dismissal and the other of termination. The order of termination is subsequent to the order of dismissal but in the said order the previous order of dismissal has not been superseded.
3. As a result of the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower. Court and the orders of termination and dismissals, direct the re- instatement of the appellant in service. But in the circumstances of the case the appellant is not entitled to back benefits.