Mr. Abdul Rehman petitioner was employed as Boiler Attendant in the Millwright Work-shop of Loco Shop, Mughalpura, Lahore. He was accused of having attempted to steal away the Railway material i. e. 5 brass small round balls, 4 brass nipples and 4 brass valves. He was consequently charge-sheeted for misconduct for the said accusation and ultimately he was retired compulsorily from service with effect from 14th January 1975,-vide order, dated 14January 1975. The petitioner filed application under sec--tion 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, against the respondent for setting aside the order of his compulsory retirement with consequential benefits. He contended in the application that he was innocent and the enquiry was not held in a fair and judicial manner. His explanation which he submitted in response to the show cause notice was not fully considered.
2. The application was resisted by the respondent who pleaded that the petitioner was retired compulsorily in accordance with law and this punishment was awarded to him after observing all the prescribed formalities.
3. The petitioner has examined P. W.
1. Muhammad Din and P. W. 2 Siraj Din whereas he himself has testified as P. W.
3. P. W. 1 Muhammad Din stated that he appeared as defence witness during the enquiry and in his presence no stolen property was produced P. W.
2. Siraj Din stated that he also appeared as defence witness at the enquiry and the stolen property was not produced.
4. Abdur Rahman petitioner himself has deposed that he has been falsely involved in the case of theft of brass. After enquiry he was issued show--cause notice. Form B is Exh. P. W. 3/1 and alongwith this notice he was also supplied copy of the enquiry report which is Exh. P.W. 3/2. Theth petitioner further stated that he submitted reply to the show-cause notice and there--after he was awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement from service vide Form `C', Exh. P.W. 3/3.
According to petitioner the stolen property was not produced during enquiry proceedings and no demonstration was held of the manner in which he was alleged to have committed theft. He admitted that during the enquiry proceedings Muhammad Akram, Senior Chargeman Feroze Din, Foreman. Naik Muhammad AIWD and Bashir Ahmed, Head Watchman appeared as witnesses against him. He further admitted that Mr. Ikram-Ul-Islam acted as his defence counsel before Enquiry Committee. He admitted that the prosecution witnesses were cross examined by his defence counsel and he produced his defence witnesses as well. He stated that he verbally asked for the production of the stolen brass and for holding of demonstration. He did not apply in writing.
5. In rebuttal Akbar Ali Shah, Head Clerk, Litigation Branch, appeared as R. W.
1. He stated that the petitioner was charged for having committed theft of brass belonging, to Railway. He was served charge-sheet in Form "Exhh. Runl/1. This charge-sheet was received by him on 24th September 1974. He submitted reply to the charge-sheet on 1st January 1.974.: His reply is Exh. R. 1/2. His reply was rejected on 4th October 1974 and he was ordered to appear before the Enquiry Committee vide letter Exh. R.W. 1/3. He participated in the enquiry proceedings personally as well as through his defence counsel. He cross-examined the prosecution witnesses and also produced his defence evidence. Proceedings of the Enquiry Committee are Exh. R. W. 1/4. The Enquiry Committee, found him guilty and submitted report on 16th December 1974. Consequently show-cause notice in' form B was served on the petitioner. He was also supplied the copy of the report of Enquiry Committee.
The petitioner submitted explanation to the show--cause notice. The competent authority considered his explanation and gave personal hearing to him and then passed the order of his compulsory retire--ment from service.
6. After careful consideration and minute analysis of the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties we have come to the conclusions that the petitioner was duly charged for misconduct. Independent enquiry was held against him. The petitioner and his defence counsel actively participated in the enquiry proceedings. They cross-examined the prosecu--tion witnesses and produced defence evidence. The Enquiry Committee found the petitioner guilty of the charge. The competent authority served second show-cause notice on the petitioner and after considering his explanation to the show-cause notice and after hearing him personally awarded him the punishment of compulsory retirement.
7. During course of arguments my attention has been invited to the fact that on the copy of the report of the Enquiry Committee supplied to the petitioner (Exh. P. W. 3/2), the date is recorded as 17th December 1974 whereas show-cause notice is dated 16th December 1974. The original enquiry, report Exh. R. W. 1/1 has also been produced. In this report at mark `M' the date of report is shown as 16th December 1974, and it appears that originally the date was written as 17th December 1074 and then by overwriting it has been converted into 16th December 1974. This point is not very material because it appears that by an over-sight President and Member of Enquiry Committee originally wrote the date as 17th December 1974 instead of 16th December 1974 and subsequently corrected the date in the original report as 16th December 1974 but this correction could not be carried out in the copy Exh. P. W. 3/2 supplied to .the petitioner. These observations found support from the contents of Exh. R. W. 1/5 whereby the office put up the enquiry report before the lower authority on 16th December 1974 and the said authority recorded an order on 16December 1974 to the effect that he agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Committee and that the accused might be issued Form 'B'. This is the original order of the lower authority and it bears date of 16th December 1974.
8. In the light of what has been said above the punishment of com--pulsory retirement from service has beets awarded to the petitioner in accordance with law after observing the prescribedth formalities. His applica--tion filed under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is, therefore, dismissed.