1. This is a petition under section 25-A of the I. R. O., 1969 for the re--instatement of the petitioner, who was employed as departmental Clerk under the respondent and was dismissed from service for the theft of 5 packarites of cigarettes. The contention of the petitioner is that the enquiry was not con--ducted properly and that the petitioner was dismissed because of his Trade Union activities.
2. The petition was contested. It was contended that the petitioner has no cause of action and that Mr. Ziaullah Khan could not represent the petitioner. On merits it was contended that the petitioner was dismissed from service when he was found guilty of misconduct as the result of an independent enquiry in which the petitioner had fully participated. It was contended that the enquiry was conducted in a fair, independent and impartial manner and that the petitioner had at no stage raised any objection regarding the enquiry.
3. The parties were afforded opportunity to produce such evidence as they wished to adduce.
4. The petitioner besides appearing himself produced one Naushad Khan as his witness while the respondent examined Mr. Muhammad Ahmad Khan Yusafi, Personnel Manager of the respondent- Establishment as its witness.
5. Exhibit P. W. 2/1 is the charge-sheet against the petitioner. According to the charge-sheet the petitioner loaded 5 packarites of cigarettes extra on Truck No. PRB-3779 which was loaded for Lahore. This act of the petitioner was noted by the Watchman who informed the Security Officer.
6. Meanwhile the petitioner had managed to have got the Truck out of the Factory premises. The Production Manager alongwith the Security I charge and the said Watchman pursued the truck and brought back to the factory and found that it had 5 extra packarites of cigarettes. The petitioner in his reply, dated 30th April, 1976 denied the charges. As the reply of the petitioner was not found satisfactory, therefore, an enquiry was held against him. Copy of the enquiry report is Exh.
7. P. W. 2/4. After thoroughly discussing the evidence the Enquiry Officer had come to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed a theft of 5 packarites of cigarettes which was recovered from the truck and that the petitioner had committed dishonesty in connection with the property of the employer. The petitioner was, therefore, dismissed from service ride the order, dated 30June, 1976, copy of which is Exh. P. W. 2/9. The enquiry officer had recorded the statements of Mr. Javaid Akhtar, Mian Waheed-ud-Din, the Departmental Head and Ahmad Khan, Watchman. In his statement Ahmad Khan, Watchman clearly stated that the petitioner had loaded 5 extra packarites of cigarettes in Truck No. PRB-3779, that he told the petitioner about the extra load but the petitioner told him that only the required packarites were loaded in the truck and that was incorrect that there were 5 extra packarites on the truck. This witness bad further stated that when he was asked to sign the issue register by the petitioner, he refused to do so and he informed his Security Incharge Said Qasim and brought him to Godown. When the witness alongwith his Security Incharge came to the Godown, they found that the truck had left the premises of the factory. The Security Incharge and the witness then informed Mr. Javaid Akhtar, Production Manager. All the three then followed the truck and brought it back.
8. From the evidence it is clear that 5 packarites were found extra in the loaded truck. It is further evident that these 5 packarites were loaded at the instance of the Petitioner. The report of the enquiry officer is thus based on cogent evidence. He had given every opportunity to the petitioner to cross---examine the witnesses of the prosecution and to produce his own witnesses in defence.
9. The petitioner was properly charge-sheeted and the enquiry was held against him in accordance with law. It cannot be said that the findings of the enquiry officer are not based on evidence and are perverse. At no stage the petitioner had objected to the person of the Enquiry Officer or the way in which the enquiry was conducted against him. The petitioner had also failed to show that a conspiracy was hatched against him. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.