This is a revision reporting that the orders, dated 28-6-1986, 30-6-1986 and 14-7-1986 refusing to allow the petitioner to produce evidence are wrong and improper. Notice of the revision was sent to the respondent by registered post but nobody has appeared to contest the same, therefore, the respondent has been proceeded against ex parte.
2. The learned lower Court did not allow the petitioner to produce evidence in support of his application brought under section 25-A for his re-instatement for the reasons that this Tribunal had in its previous decision found that the petitioner had committed theft of one kilogram of glucose. The learned lower Court is of the opinion that as the point with regard to the theft was finally adjudicated upon by this Tribunal, the petitioner was not entitled to lead evidence to show that he did not commit the theft or that for the commission of theft he was wrongly dismissed.
3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was charge-sheeted for committing theft of one kilogram of glucose and before inquiry could be held and final order passed, he had brought a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 challenging the charge-sheet on the ground that it was time-barred. A stay order was issued in the said grievance petition, with the result that the petitioner remained on duty. After taking evidence the learned lower Court dismissed the previous grievance petition holding that the charge-sheet was not time- barred. The petitioner had come before this Court in appeal against the said order. It was considered by mistake that the petitioner had been dismissed from service and his grievance petition brought against the dismissal order had been dismissed. This Court found that commission of theft had been proved against him and his appeal was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated in service on the ground that the charge-sheet was time-barred. Since by that time neither any inquiry was held nor any dismissal order had been passed against the petitioner, there was no occasion to direct hiss re-instatement in service. The observations made by this Court in the said appeal, therefore, have no adverse effect upon the case of the parties.
Since now the petitioner has been dismissed from service after holding an inquiry and giving finding that he had committed theft, he is entitled to challenge the order of his dismissal in his grievance petition and can lead evidence that the factum of the commission of theft has not been established against him.
4. As a result of what has been said above, the revision is accepted ex parte and setting aside the orders whereby the learned lower Court has disallowed the petitioner to produce evidence, the case is remanded with the direction that after allowing the parties to produce evidence, the same be re-decided on merits.