DECISION ' This decision will dispose of abovementioned grievance application filed under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969 on 28-5-1988 whereby the applicant has prayed to set aside the order dated 19-12-1987 passed by respondent for dismissing him from service, and, direction to the respondent to reinstate him in service with full back benefits.
2. Briefly the case of applicant as put up in the application is that he was permanent workman with 20 years of service but he was victimized for more than once in the past by the respondent by being removed from service. It is said that earlier also he filed grievance application in the Ilnd Sind Labour Court, Karachi which was allowed vide order dated 12-11-1984 and against which no appeal was filed. Accordingly, applicant gave application to the respondent demanding medical expenses alongwith other back benefits, and on their demand he also furnished details/prescription but the same was not allowed and instead a charge-sheet dated 14-7-1986 was issued against him to which he submitted his reply but in the meantime he also filed Application No, 160 of 1986 for reimbursement of medical bills in this Court which was dismissed and the appeal filed by the applicant was also dismissed. Subsequently departmental proceedings on the basis of said charge-sheet were commenced which is said to be a mere cloak to dismiss him from service on account of his demand for medical bills. It is contended that the witnesses appearing against him in the said enquiry did not give proper replies and the Enquiry Officer also did not allow him to produce defence evidence, that the Enquiry Officer was partial person and that the charges in the said charge-sheet were not actually proved; however, he was issued second show-cause notice with opportunity of personal hearing which was duly replied by him where after, he was actually not heard personally and thereafter he was dismissed from service vide order dated 19-12-1987.
Accordingly, he sent the grievance notice dated 15-3-1988 but the same was rejected vide reply dated 5-4-1988, hence the instant grievance application.
3. Whereas the respondent have resisted this grievance application through their reply statement whereby they have denied all the allegations against them contained in the grievance application and it is contended that the impugned order is legal and proper passed on account of proved misconduct by the applicant as such the grievance application is liable to be dismissed.
4. In his support, applicant filed his affidavit in evidence. Whereas in defence, respondent filed affidavits in evidence of Karam Hussain Shamsi, their Deputy Manager (Purchase) who had conducted departmental enquiry against the applicant, and, Muhammad Aslam Fayyaz, their Deputy Manager (Labour). All the above mentioned witnesses were duly cross-examined. After perusal of written arguments submitted on behalf of both the parties, and, the record, my finding is as under.
5. In this matter, the point for determination is as under:-- ' Whether the charge contained in the charge-sheet was proved on the basis of evidence in the domestic enquiry?
6. In his affidavit in evidence, the applicant has adopted contents of application and denied the pleas of reply statement. And, in cross-examination he has admitted to have sent the letter to the Manager (Establishment) on 23-6-1986 Exh. A/1. The perusal of this letter shows that he has referred to Dr. Khurshidi, Mr. Akhlaq Saheb, TA. Qadri, Aslam Fayyaz and Hidayat son of Fateh Ali as," {{URDU TEXT}} ' He has referred to the acts of the aforesaid as, ' It was on the basis of this admitted letter that the charge sheet Exh. A/2 dated 14-7-1986 was issued against the applicant and on the basis of which domestic enquiry was conducted against him. He has admitted that R.W. Karam Hussain Shamsi was the Enquiry Officer and that he had participated in the said enquiry but had also raised objection to the appointment of the said Enquiry Officer because some of the witnesses appearing against him were of higher rank; however, the perusal of the enquiry report Annexure R/2 shows that such an objection was raised after the only P.W. Namely Maj. Muhammad Ashraf Khan, higher in rank to the -rank of Enquiry Officer had already been examined. He has admitted to have signed the minutes of enquiry which comprises of four volumes. He has admitted to have given application Exh. A/10 to the Enquiry Officer whereby he had requested for summoning defence witnesses out of which some were outsiders. In that application Exh. A/10, he has requested to summon present and Ex-officers of the management without naming anyone. He has admitted that the statements of all the defence witnesses as did appear before the Enquiry Officer were recorded in his presence and he had also submitted his written statement Exh. A/11. He has admitted the receipt of second show-cause notice Exh. A/12. He has produced his application dated 3-101987 Exh. A/13 for supply of Urdu translation of enquiry report which was not provided to him; there is no law that the report of enquiry report or its translation be provided. In any case, the applicant admits to have been supplied summary of the enquiry report. It is contended that he appeared before the Factory Manager for personal hearing on 10-12-1987 but was not actually heard and was asked to go away.
He admits that he had not applied for assistance of co-worker during the enquiry.
' Then the perusal of the minutes of enquiry and the enquiry report shows that witnesses examined against him namely Maj. Muhammad Ashraf Khan, TA. Qadri, Ch. Hidayat Ali, Muhammad Aslam Fayyaz (also examined in this Court as R.W.) and Dr. Khurshidi who are victim of admitted letter dated 23-6-1986 Exh. A/1 of the applicant have stated as to how they were offended by the filthy language used in the said letter. It further shows that while cross-examining, the applicant has tried to show that the said witnesses had unnecessarily re-acted because such letters are frequently issued; however, this suggestion of applicant does not absolve him from the liability of admitted act of issuing the said letter which even to this Court appears to be a flagrant use of abusive and filthy language amounting to an act subversive of discipline. The perusal of enquiry minutes and the report further shows that the cross-examination of Maj. Muhammad Ashraf by applicant extended to as many as 214 questions and even in those questions, his language is far from that of a normal respectable person. At this stage, it may be mentioned that even in the Qanun-e-Shahadat there is a provision whereby the Court can disallow indecent and scandalous questions under Article 151. In the same manner, and extent the rest of R.Ws. Have been cross- examined by the applicant during the domestic enquiry. It further shows that accused had given his written statement in detail and nineteen witnesses were summoned out of whom some were reported to be out of Pakistan, some did not appear to give their statement while the rest were examined but their evidence is mainly against Dr. Khurshidi who is said to have not properly attended to their medical needs when they were employed with respondent; however, they have said nothing to justify the language used in the letter Exh. A/1. The contention of the applicant that the Enquiry Officer had acted partially by himself cross-examining the witnesses is of no avail for the reason that even under Qanun-eShahadat the Court is empowered to ask any question. Under the circumstances discussed above, I am of the opinion that the enquiry was properly held and the applicant was given full opportunity of defence and that the evidence led in the domestic enquiry is sufficient to prove the charge-sheet. The affidavit in evidence of R.W. Karam Hussain Shamsi which is in support of reply statement and in denial of allegations/pleas contained in the grievance application shows that he has been cross-examined on the point that he had not conducted the enquiry properly and that he was partial and that applicant was victimized on account of his trade union activities but none of the said suggestions has been proved. He has admitted to have given full opportunity to the applicant to defend himself during the domestic enquiry. He has stated that he and one witness against the applicant during the domestic enquiry were promoted but they were promoted on the basis of their seniority. He has admitted that the case against the applicant in the Court of learned S.D.M., Bin Qasim for false claim of medical bill filed by respondent was dismissed but no adverse presumption can be drawn on account of said fact in favour of applicant for the purpose of deciding the instant application for the reason that the said judgment of learned S.D.M. Bin Qasim or its details are not before this Court. He has also stated in cross-examination that application of applicant for change of Enquiry Officer was dismissed by the management and that the said application was moved on 31-12-1986 when by that time Maj. Muhammad Ashraf senior to him had been fully examined during the enquiry. The nature of the evidence of remaining R.W. Aslam Fayyaz and cross-examination to him is also the same.
7. Under the circumstances, it is held that domestic enquiry against the applicant was held properly and in accordance with law and that the charge-sheet has been proved, as such there is no reason to set aside the impugned order and, therefore, this grievance application is hereby dismissed.