' The decision dated 5th October, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 6, Rawalpindi has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. The allegation against the respondent for which he was charge-sheeted and after holding an enquiry against him was dismissed from service, was of absence from 29th September, 1981 to 9th November, 1981. First of all notice of resumption of duty was sent which was received back with the report that the respondent had left for Saudi Arabia. Charge-sheet and enquiry notice were sent by registered post with AID and that too came back with the same kind of reports that the addressee was out of country. The learned lower Court says that sending of charge-sheet and enquiry notice on the same addres after the notice of absence had been received back unserved amounted to fulfilling the formalities and no attempt was made to serve the said documents. The learned lower Court has not suggested how in these circumstances the appellant should have taken effective steps to serve the charge-sheet and enquiry notice. This is not the case of the respondent that he had left or had after leaving the the country sent any address of Saudi Arabia. In these circumstances the appellant had to make correspondence only on the address available with it. It was the duty of the respondent to get leave sanctioned before leaving the country. Rather his case is that he did not go to Saudi Arabia but had fallen sick at his native place.
3. The other allegation of the learned lower Court is that the respondent was not heard before his appeal was rejected. The order of rejection shows that due consideration was given to the grounds of appeal. Personal hearing in departmental appeal is not necessary unless it is specifically requested. Evidence too is not taken at the appellate stage.
4. The other objection is that although the notice of obsence was not personally served yet this charge was held by the Enquiry Officer as proved. It may be said firstly that service of notice of absence is not a separate charge. It was mentioned in the charge-sheet to show that the respondent had been informed that he was being treated absent and was called upon to resume duty. If the respondent had resumed duty in compliance with the notice of absence and yet bad been taken to task, of course the action would not have been justified. The said notice as well as the subsequent notice were not personally served not for any fault of the appellant but due to the fact that the respondent did knot inform the appellant about his fresh address. The appellant did what it possibly could do. So the respondent was himself responsible for the consequences of not furnishing any fresh address with the appellant.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that it was necessary for the appellant to have examined the postman who made reports on the registered letters. In labour case it is not necessary. The reports were made in the course of official duties. Since the envelopes bearing the reports bear the seals of the post office, the presumption is that the reports are of the postman concerned. If the reports had been tampered with, of course in order to prove what was the actual report the examination of the postman by the appellant would have been necessary. The respondent should have summoned the postman if he was challenging the genuineness of the reports. It was suggested to the learned counsel that if the respondent wants to examine the postman, the case may be remanded but the Learned Counsel said that the appellant should be asked to summon the postman. So far as the appellant is concerned, he proved the case by tendering in evidence the original envelops and the postal reports which were admitted in evidence without any objection. This is not the stage to object to them. The appellant was justified in the circumstances discussed above, to dismiss the respondent and the learned lower Court was not justified to direct reinstatement. The impugned decision of the learned lower Court, therefore, is not sustainable.
6. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the order of dismissal is revived and the grievance petition of the respondent is dismissed. At one stage the appellant had suggested to the respondent for re-employment. This decision would not stand in the way of the appellant if it wants to accommodate the respondent.