This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 17-4-1989 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, IX, Multan, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service has been dismissed.
2. Previously three times the case was remanded for fresh inquiry. The ground on which the appellant was dismissed from service was that he had manhandled Col. Imdad Ali, Manager.
Inquiry was held on 20-10-1985. The date for which inquiry notice was issued was 17-10-1985 on which date the appellant had appeared but asked for adjournment on the ground of illness, therefore, inquiry was adjourned to 20-10-1985. On the said date he sent telegram to the effect that he had come to participate in the inquiry but he was not allowed by the security staff to enter the mills. The inquiry was again held ex parte. Before the date of inquiry i,e, 17-10-1985 the appellant had moved an application on 8-10-1985 for changing the Inquiry Officer. He received no reply. No doubt there was no response to his application but he was not justified in not participating in the inquiry on 20-10-1985. The members of the Security staff were examined as RWs in the learned lower Court who stated that the appellant had not come to the mills on 20-10-1985, nor they had disallowed him from entering the mills. Thus, it was the appellant who was at fault in not participating in the inquiry and this is wrong that he was prevented from entering the premises. So far as the A objection for changing the Inquiry Officer is concerned, the same was not made to the competent authority but was addressed to the Manager, who is alleged to have been manhandled by him and for which the inquiry was being held. He should have addressed the application to the authority who had issued the charge-sheet and had appointed the Inquiry Officer. So, the appellant was himself responsible for not joining the inquiry held on 20-10-1985.
3. However, on other grounds the order of dismissal is not sustainable. The dates given under the signatures of the Inquiry Officer on the inquiry proceedings are changed and tampered with at many places. It cannot be definitely said why the date was changed; but most probable is that some proceedings may have been recorded on 24-10-1985 when the inquiry report was prepared and since on 20-10-1985 no notice was issued to the appellant, for 24th therefore, the date was changed from 24th to 20th. The original inquiry proceedings are on the record, therefore, the presumption is that they have been produced by the respondent. Since even otherwise the inquiry proceedings remained in the custody of the Inquiry Officer or the management and the employee under inquiry could not have any access to it, in the absence of evidence to the contrary if any interpolation is made, the employee is not responsible for it, but such an interpolation has been made by the Inquiry Officer or someone else at the instance of the management. The Inquiry Officer performs the duties of quasi-judicial nature, therefore, he is expected to conduct the inquiry in the manner B judicial officers do. If they are found to have made any interpolation, they lose confidence in the eyes of the persons against whom they hold inquiry and in the eyes of the authorities who have to deal with the case at any stage. On account of interpolation made in the dates, no confidence can be had in such an inquiry officer. The inquiry proceedings, therefore, are doubtful and on the basis of such an inquiry the order of dismissal cannot be based. Since thrice the case was c remanded for fresh inquiry, there is no occasion to again ask the management to hold the inquiry.
4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court and, the order of dismissal, the appellant is directed to be reinstated in service. Since the appellant has succeeded on account of doubt about the genuineness of the inquiry proceedings, he is not, in these circumstances, entitled to back benefits.