It appears that one, Abdur Rehman, son of Gul Ahmad resident of Lakki Syed Khel, District Bannu, was employed it the Sugar Mills, Serai Naurang, a9 a Lineman in 1966. On the night between 16/t7th August, 1971, while the petitioner was of duty in the Power House from 11 p. m. to 7 a. m. he way allegedly caught sleeping i-t the Time Of-a at about 11-45 p. to by Mr. Bashir. Electrical Foreman who visited the premises from his house because of the low voltage iii the whop Colony of the Bannu Sugar Mills. Later Mr. Bashir reported the matter to the Manager of the Sugar Mills, who charge-sheeted the petitioner an 17th August 1971. A copy of the charge-sheet is Exh. P. It.
Subsequently the Manager appointed an Enquiry Committee, consisting of Mr. Qayyum, Assistant Mechanical Engineer and Sharif Ahmed Khan, Cane Superintendent, to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner. The Committee later submitted its report on 21st August 1947, on the basis of which the petitioner was removed from service on 25th August 1971. The evidence recorded by the Enquiry Committee Is Exh. R. W. 1/B (7 sheets) and the enquiry report h Eth. K. W. 1/C. The order appointing the Enquiry Committee is Exh. R. W. 1/A. The order terminating the services of the petitioner is Exh. P.
C. Subsequently, it appears, the petitioner saved a grievance notice on the Management which was, however, rejected tan 13th September 1971, vide Order of that date (copy Exh: P. D). Thereafter the petitioner made the present petition to this Court for his re-instatement.
2. The Bannu Sugar Mills through Its Manager resisted the petition arid the evidence produced by the parties was accordingly recorded. The petitioner alone appeared in support of his petition while the respondent produced Sharif Ahmed Khan (It. VJ. 1) In rebuttal. No other evidence was produced.
3. From the evidence recorded by the Enquiry Committee, It is evident that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. It is not even clear whether the witnesses produced by the Management in support of the charge levelled against the petitioner, during the enquiry were examined in his presence or not. This evidence was allegedly recorded on 20th and 21st August 1971, according to Sharif Ahmed Khan who was a Members of the Enquiry Committee.
The petitioner's statement was also recorded on 20th August 1971. It is, therefore, clear that his statement was not recorded after the evidence of the Management was closed. Sharif Ahmed Khan would like us to believe that the petitioner was present while the statements of the witnesses produced by the Manage--ment were recorded and he was given an opportunity to cross- examine them but he did not avail of that opportunity. He (Sharif Ahmed Khan), however, admitted that he did not record the statement of the petitioner to the effect that he did not wish to cross- examine the witnesses. Similarly there is nothing on the record to Indicate that the petitioner was given any opportunity to produce his own evidence. Sharif Ahmad Khan, stated that he did give an opportunity to the petitioner to produce his,' evidence, If any, but he did not produce any. Again this witness admitted that he did not record the statement of the petitioner to that effect. A copy of the enquiry report was also not supplied to the petitioner and there is nothing on the record to indicate that before the petitioner's services were terminated, he was given any show-cause notice or any opportunity of personal hearing. Similarly after the petitioner served the notice of grievance on the Management, he was -not given any oppor--tunity of personal hearing. The enquiry wag, therefore, irregular.
4. According to Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, a workman can be dismissed from service if he is found guilty of misconduct. According to subsection (3) of this Standing Order the following acts and omissions are treated as misconduct:---
(a) Wilful insubordination or disobedience, whether alone or in combination with others, to, any lawful and reasonable order of a superior:
(b) theft fraud or dishonesty In - connection with the employer's business or property I Wilful damage to or 1036 of employer's goods or property:
(d) taking or giving bribes or any illegal gratification:
(e) habitual absence without leave or absence without leave for more than tore days I
(f) habitual late attendance:
(g) habitual breach of any; law applicable to the establish--ment;
(h) riotous or disorderly behaviour during working hours at the establishment or any act subversive of discipline ;
(i) habitual negligence or neglect of work:
(J) frequent repetition of any act or omission referred to in clause 1:
(k) striking work or inciting others try strike in contravention of the provisions of any law, or rule having the force of law ;
(l) go-slow.
5. Now from the perusal of these acts and omissions it would appear that the petitioner was not guilty of any act or omission, which amounted to misconduct. All that was alleged against him was that he was sleeping in the Time Office at about 11-45 p. m. while he was on duty. The allegation against hi can amount only to careless working which is mentioned in sub--section (1) (ii) of Standing Order 15, for which he could be reprimanded or fined. The termination ref his services was, therefore, contrary to law, besides being inconsistent with natural justice.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, urged that in view of the admission of his guilt during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, the petitioner is not entitled to re- instatement. In this behalf he referred me to an application made by the petitioner (Exh. D. A.) on 3rd January 1972, wherein, he submitted an apology and prayed for re-instatement. There is no doubt that he did make this application but from a perusal of the endorsement of his immediate boss hereon it would appear that the petitioner was a good worker, and his case was, therefore, recommended for re-employment on the strength of which the petitioner was re-employed with effect from 4th January 1972, vide office Order of that date (Copy, Exh P. E). Now If the petitioner was a good worker and he could be re-employed in the same grate in which he was working when his services were terminated, there wag no reason why he could not be re-instated, especially when the enquiry made against him was not made in accordance with the principles of natural justice and also when the termina--tion of his services was contrary to law. I, therefore, feel that the petitioner is entitled to re-instatement from the date from which his services were terminated. I have consulted my colleague, Mr. Shaida. A. Qureshi in this behalf and he agrees with me.
Accordingly I accept the petition, set aside the order of the respondent terminating the services of the petitioner and direct that he shall be re-instated from .the date from which his services were terminated and he shall be entitled to all the benefits and privileges guaranteed to him by law from that date. Parties are, however, allowed to bear their own costs.