AMIRZADA KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-It appears that Akram Khan, son of . Adam Khan, 'resident of Mohallah Gulla Khel, Behzadal Chiker' Kot, Kohat, wok employed on 12th September 1970 as a Record-Keeper-cum-Typist in the Purchase Office of Kohat Textile Mills Ltd. Kohat in the grade of Re. 120-10-300 per month in the first instance on probation for a period of three months, by an order, dated 13th September 1970 (Copy Exh. P.A). After completing the three months -probation he was given an increment of Re. 30 per month but in addition to his normal duties in the Purchase Office to which he was appointed it seems, he was frequently called upon to perform the typing work of other offices of the Mills as well. It further appears that there was no complaint against him till 26th September 1971, when he was asked to type a letter for the Manager of the Mills, which the latter was to take to--Lahore in connection with some important business. Akram Khan refused to type that letter on the ground that he was already busy in typing the work, of his own Office. He was asked to type .the letter in the first instance by the Purchase Officer who, on refusal by Akram Khan,-reported the matter to the Manager who also asked Akram Khan to type the letter but he did not agree, with the result that the Manager charge-sheeted him on 26th September 1971 for disobedience and rude behaviour. A copy of the charge-sheet is Exh. P. B. to which Akram- Khan submitted a reply, making some wild charges against the Purchase Officer. 'The Manager thereafter constituted an Inquiry Committee, comprising of Ch: Maqbul Ahmad, Chief Accountant, Aziz Ahmed Siddiqi, Labour and Personnel Officer and Haji Anwar Shah, Administrative Officer to make an inquiry into the charges against Akram Khan. On 27th September 1971, 4ram Khan in view of the pending inquiry against him, was, suspended for four days with effect from that date.
Subsequently, it appears, 4lc the inquiry Committee made a sort of inquiry and made a sport Koh on 30th September 1971, holding Akram Khan guilty of Tax indiscipline, disobedience and defiance on the basis of which hewas dismissed on the same day, i.e., 30th September 1971. The ---inquiry 'report Is Exh. D. A. while the dismissal order is Exh. P. E. Akram Khan then served a notice of grievance (copy C Exh. P. F.) on the Management on 12th October 1971 but it was rejected on 24th October ' 1971 vide order of that date (copy Exh. P. O.) Aggrieved with all these proceedings of dismissal from service. Akram Khan submitted a petition to this Court under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (as amended), read with Standing Order 18 of West Pakistan Indus--trial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, Against the Kohat Textile, Mills Ltd., Kohat, praying that the dismissal 9rder may be set aside and he may be re- instated with full benefits from the date of his dismissal.
2. The respondent resisted this petition and the parties produced their evidence-which was duly recorded.
3. It is not disputed that the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 26th September 1971 and was suspended oh 27th September 1971, for four days with effect from that date. Also it is not disputed- that an Inquiry Committee was constituted which made an inquiry against him on 30th September 1971 and on the strength of the report of that Committee the petitioner was dismissed on the same day. Similarly, - it is not disputed that after his dismissal the petitioner served a grievance notice on the Management but it was rejected. The main question for determination in this case, however, is, whether the dismissal of the petitioner was in accordance with law or not. There is no doubt that the 'petitioner did make some wild charges against certain Officers of the respondent, especially against the Purchase Officer but that should not, by itself, affect the merits of the case as far as the legal aspect. is concerned. I Apart from the charge---sheet and the reply of the petitioner thereto and the inquiry report of the so-called Inquiry Committee, there is no other documentary evidence on the record to show that a regular inquiry was held against the petitioner in accordance with law.
The two members of the Inquiry Committee, namely, Aziz Ahmed siddiqi (R. W.-2) and Haji Anwar Shah (R. W. 3), admitted that the inquiry was completed within about half an hour or 45 minutes after summoning the petitioner and questioning him about his behaviour. According to these witnesses, the petitioner was summoned and asked if he had anything to say and he replied that he had to say nothing more than what he had stated in his reply' to the charge-sheet. It is also alleged that the petitioner was summoned by means of a letter which was sent to him through a peon but neither the letter was placed on the record and nor was the peon produced to prove that the petitioner was regularly summoned before the Inquiry Committee. We have, therefore, no proper evidence in proof of the fact that the petitioner was in fact summoned before the Inquiry Committee. Assuming that he' was summoned by the Inquiry Committee, there is nothing on the/A record to show that the Management produced any witness to prove the charges against him, and nor is there anything on the record to indicate that the petitioner was given any opportunity to cross-examine' those witnesses or to produce his own witnesses in rebuttal of the allegations made against him. The inquiry was, therefore, obviously irregular. Apart from this, the Inquiry Committee itself was irregularly constituted because there is nothing on the record in writing to show that this Inquiry Com--mittee was constituted by the Manager who alone was authorised to do so. Even the dismissal order is illegal because it was not passed by the Manager himself' but by the Chairman of the Inquiry Committee who was acting on that date, I.e., 30th September 1971, for the Manager who happened to be on leave on that date. I am, therefore, constrained to accept the petition and set aside the order of the dismissal of the petitioner. The petition is, therefore, allowed, the order of dismissal of the petitioner is set aside and it is directed that he shall be re-instated on the same post with effect from 27th September 1971 and he shall be entitled to all the benefits allowed to him by law from that date. Costs of the petition shall, however, be borne by the parties fn view of the Arrogant behaviour of the petitioner which he showed in his reply to the charge- sheet. If he had not made those wild allegations in his reply, it is possible that no action might have been taken against him. He is, therefore, not allowed costs of this petition.