The petitioner, an employee of Messrs Attock Oil Company Limited (the respondents) bad been dismissed from service by the respondents on a charge of misconduct. He has now challenged the respondents' action under section 6 of the Essential Services Act, the respondents having been declared essential service under section 3 of the said Act.
2. It had been alleged against the petitioner that on 12th March, 1975, be had entered into a quarter allotted to a fellow employee, named Misri Khan, and abused the latter's wife and children by shouting at the top of his voice. A show-cause notice was given to the petitioner in respect of the said allegations and later an enquiry was conducted against him. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty of misconduct as described by S. O. 15, Clause (3), paragraph 4 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, which ultimately has resulted into his dismissal.
3. The main contention of Mr. Sadiq Muhammad Warraich, the learned counsel for the petitioner has been that the petitioner's dismissal is illegal and mala fide as at the enquiry the only evidence appearing against the petitioner was that he had brought police to the quarter of Misri Khan and it was in fact the police officer who had abused the former's wife but not the petitioner and for that purpose the learned counsel has referred to the enquiry proceed--ings filed by the respondents themselves. Mr. Warralch has further pointed out that it was in fact Misri Khan's wife who had threatened and abused the petitioner and his family members which matter was reported to the police and the latter after due verification of the facts had held Misri Khan's wife the aggressor party.
4. After going through the Enquiry Officer's report one cannot help but agree with the contention put forwards by the petitioner's counsel. None of the witnesses examined in the enquiry has implicated the petitioner, the only role assigned to him being that he had only accompanied the police to Mirsi Khan's quarter. It is therefore quite clear that the offence with which the petitioner was originally charged in the charge-sheet could not be proved at the enquiry, the evidence clearly pointing out that it was the police Officer and not the petitioner who had abused Misri Khan's wife. It i9 therefore hard to understand as to how the petitioner was fount guilty of misconduct under S. O. 15 (3) (h) on such evidence and awarded the extreme penalty i.e. dismissal from service. The action of the respondents is therefore highly unreasonable. The result: the petitioner should be re-instated in service with all the back benefits.
5. The respondents had raised certain preliminary objections regarding the jurisdiction of the Authority to entertain the instant application but did not press them at the time of arguments presumably due to the reason that the Commission by earlier pronouncements has held that it has jurisdiction under section 6 of the Essential Services Act to re-instate employees.