1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The petitioner is the, employer of respondent No. 3 Muhammad Ashraf, and it has challenged the validity of the orders of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and Punjab Labour Court and of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court passed in respect of the dismissal from service of respondent Muhammad Ashraf.
2. Respondent Muhammad Ashraf was posted as a Fitter in Multan and he was dismissed from service by the petitioner for misconduct. The dismissal was preceded by the service of charge-- sheet on the respondent and an inquiry into the charges against him. The respondent had participated in the inquiry and examined some witnesses on his behalf. The Inquiry Officer found the charges proved against the respondent and submitted his report to the authorities recommending dismissal of the respondent from service. The District Manager, Government Transport Service, Multan, thereupon, heard Muhammad Ashraf personally to enable him to defend his case and put forward a plausible reply and passed the impugned order of dismissal dated the 5th of June 1968. It should be borne in mind that the respondent was not furnished with a copy of the said report.
3. It has been contended before us that the learned Single Judge of the High Court has on the basis of an erroneous interpreta--tion of clause (4) of Standing Order No. 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, held that the impugned order of dismissal must have been preceded by a notice to respondent Muhammad Ashraf to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service.
4. The said clause (4) of Standing Order No. 15 is as follows :- "No order of dismissal shall be made unless the workman concerned is informed in writing of the alleged misconduct and is given an opportunity to explain the circumstances alleged against him.
5. The approval of the employer shall be required in every case of dismissal and, when circumstances appear to warrant it, the employer may institute independent inquiries before dealing with charges against a workman."
6. Under the clause three things are essential before a dismissal can be ordered. First, the workman must be informed in writing of the alleged misconduct. Second, he is given an opportunity to explain the circumstances alleged against him, Third, the approval of the employer must be secured.
7. The impugned order of dismissal dated the 5th of June 1968, shows that the following matters were taken into consideration while ordering dismissal of the respondent :-
(a) The charge-sheet dated the 4th of January 1966, served on the respondent ;
(b) The reply of the respondent ; and
(c) The enquiry report dated the 31st of October 1966, holding the respondent guilty of the charges framed against him.
8. Admittedly the enquiry report dated the 31st of October 1966, which is indeed one of the circumstances alleged against the respondent was never supplied to him with the result that he had no opportunity to explain anything in the. Report that was adverse to him.
9. The charge-sheet mentioned certain allegations against the respondent including that of riotous and disorderly behaviour during working hours and asked him to explain within three days , of the receipt of the charge-sheet why severe disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The respondent submitted his explanation accordingly but it was found not acceptable and the inquiry was started. It appears from the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer that the following extraneous circumstances which were not the subject-matter of the inquiry, were taken into con-- sideration by the Inquiry Officer while recommending the dismissal of the respondent :- "On account of their non-co-operative behaviour specially of this workman the RTC has been put to financial loss as he adopted go slow policy to sabotage the service. This is the only reason due to which our fleet position is going from bad to worse and bringing bad name to the Organisation due to the curtailment of services and causing collosal loss of revenue. In my opinion the least punishment he deserves is the dismissal from service. The sooner we get rid of him the better it would be for this commercial organisation. "
10. It is, thus, obvious that this extraneous matter which greatly influenced the Inquiry Officer to recommend the dismissal of the respondent was never brought to the latter's notice. For aught we know if the respondent's attention had been drawn to it he might have succeeded in convincing his employer that this was wholly an irrelevant consideration for passing the order of dismissal or that some lesser penalty should have been awarded to him. The report also brings out certain circumstances in favour of the respondent which were disregarded by the Inquiry Officer, but which the respondent might have succeeded in induc--ing his employer to take them into consideration in favour of the respondent. One of the circumstance3 was that the order to do the particular thing was received half an hour before the closing time which was 4 p.m. And that it was the month of Ramzan.
11. In our opinion, therefore, it was necessary and consistent with the principles of natural justice that not only the respondent should have been furnished with a copy of the enquiry report but also he should have been given an opportunity to show cause why the order of dismissal should not be passed against him. Evidently such an opportunity must take the form of written show--cause notice to the respondent. The mere fact that the respon--dent had a personal audience with his employer when he asserted he was not guilty cannot replace the aforesaid requirement' of law.
12. We, therefore, find no justification for interfering with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed.