1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-This is an application under section 25(1)(6) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
2. The case of the first party is that he was working under the second party as a drawn for 6 long years. His last pay was Rs. 114.00 per month. He was falsely implicated in a criminal case. But he was later on discharged by the Magistrate. During the pendency of the criminal case he was charge- sheeted and the second party - dismissed him from his service. The petitioner received the certified copy of the order on 21st June 1969 and submitted a grievance petition on 30th June,1969.
3. But the second party did not redress his grievance. Hence he filed this case. The petitioner prayed for directing the second party to re-instate him to his former post with all back wages.
4. The case of the second party is that the first party was caught red-handed by drawn Islam Khan Bahadur on 29th August 1968 at 2 a.m. while he was passing with a sack containing 201 pieces of silver carrier spinning frames stolen from the factory of Latif Brawny Jute Mills Ltd. The first party was further absent from duty from that date without any leave or information extending beyond 10 days. Thus he was charged for misconduct and he was told to show cause within 4 days of the, receipt of the letter. As his explanation was not found satisfactory he was told to appear in an enquiry. But he failed to attend the enquiry and thereafter the enquiry was concluded after observing the due formalities and as the offence of misconduct vas proved against him, he was dismissed from services. The discharge in the criminal case by the Magistrate has no relevancy with enquiry conducted by the second party where the first party was found guilty.
5. Points for determination in the present case are:
(1) Whether the order of dismissal passed against the first party is sustainable in Law?
(2) What relief, if any, is the first party entitled?
6. FINDINGS AND DECISION Point No.1.---The first party stated that lie was discharged in the criminal case by the Magistrate for lack of evidence. It n appears from the certified copy of the said order of discharge that he was so discharged. But an order of discharge does not necessarily mean that the bona fides of the accused person were proved to its heal and that no proceedings will be against him. In this connection the, learned counsel for the second party cited the ruling reported in SC (India), Tata Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen (1) and 1964 PLC 810. There is no legal force behind the contention that an 3 order of discharge passed by a criminal Court necessarily imply that for the same charges a departmental enquiry cannot be conducted against the accused. On a scrutiny of the papers filed in the case it appears that formal charges were drawn up against the first party and that he was given quite adequate opportunities to represent his case and to defend himself. He remained absent on different dates and also on the date of enquiry and as such the enquiry vas held ex parte. The statements of 8 witnesses were recorded. But as the accused did not turn up at the enquiry, they were not cross-examined. Other papers show that he was told to appear at the time of enquiry: But he himself shunts the enquiry. This was by his personal choice and as such no grievance on that score would lie. The charge of misconduct has been fully established and in such circum stances I find no point in the contention of the first parry that the order of dismissal passed by the second party is illegal and not maintainable.
7. Point No.2.---An view of my findings in point No.1, it appears that no relief is available in this application of the first party.
8. Members on consultation agreed with my decision above.
9. 1964 L L C 647