' The appeal is directed against an order dated 14-12-1992, passed by Pir Akhtar Husain Bodla, Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,4, Faisalabad accepting the grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, submitted before him by Shahid Javid Amin, a postman who was dismissed from service on 10-9-1990. His reinstatement has been ordered by the Labour Court and soundness of the aforesaid decision has been impugned by the Authorities of the Postal Department.
2. In a regular enquiry conducted against the postman. He was found to be guilty of misconduct, as he had not delivered to the addressees over a petty long period as many as 206 letters and had also allegedly extracted a blank cheque from a postal envelope posted by someone from France.
This was obviously done with criminal intention. He was also alleged to have prepared a bogus money-order by affixing on the money order form a seal which he had stolen or removed from the custody of its keeper. There were five charges and he was found guilty of two out of those. The enquiry was conducted by an officer Sardar Alam ASPOS, Toba Tek Singh who according to the employee was inimical towards him.
2. The bare fact that the Enquiry Officer held the postman guilty of only two charges would demonstrate that he was fair and independent in the enquiry proceedings and in the course of hearing of the grievance petition the postman has not been able to establish any animosity or prejudice on the part of the Enquiry Officer. Learned counsel for the appellants revealed in the course of his arguments that the official was actually an addict who was always in need of money and was at the same time immensely careless in the performance of his duty and often used to be absent from duty. The learned counsel for the respondent maintained that he had improved in due course although he was erratic in the beginning. During a short period of two years of service he had, however, displayed a conduct from which not only misconduct but inefficiency also were clearly out. I would agree with the appellants that the postman had very badly betrayed the trust reposed in him by the department as also members of the public who were deprived of receiving important messages in time and thus he had brought a bad name to the department which had a reputation of nobility, honesty and efficiency. Conduct of the respondent was prejudicial to the good order and service discipline, tan amounting to sheer misconduct under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules calling for a major penalty.
4. The learned lower Court has rather adopted a posture of kindness and leniency towards the delinquent official in observing that the allegations although proved against the official did not warrant award of extreme penalty of removal from service. I would not agree with the Court below that the delayed delivery of mail to members of the public was merely violation of rule and it did not constitute an act of misconduct entailing award of major penalty. What else is inefficiency if a postman keeps the Dak with him for as long a period as two months with no pretence of ill-health even? It is to be noted that this allegation had been admitted in enquiry by the official who could not offer any excuse or defence for display of such serious delinquency on his part. For maintaining discipline in the Department, Authorities have to be strict and I am sure that any indulgence extended to the erratic official would have further spoiled him and that would have in turn been prejudicial to public interest and would also have tarnished the good name of the Department.
Inefficient and dishonest performance of the postman could not lightly be ignored and the proved allegations provided a valid ground for imposition of major penalty. The postman had also filed a departmental appeal which too was rejected by the Deputy Postmaster General. As there were in existence no extenuating circumstances in his favour and he could not be leniently dealt with I would endorse the action taken against him by the Authorities and would not approve of the approach to the issue adopted by the learned Labour Court. The appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set aside although with no order as to costs. Cross-objections filed by the accused official laying claim to back benefits obviously merit rejection in consequence of acceptance of appeal of the Department.