Rawalpindi Electric & Power Co. Ltd., is an essential service. Sher Khan was employed in this establishment as a Cooly. In connection with theft of some articles in the establishment, Sher Khan was charge sheeted and ultimately his service were terminated with effect from 24-7-76.
Sher Khan has filed this petition under section 6 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance)
Act, 1952 alleging that no proper inquiry was held against him and that his removal was, therefore, illegal. He has prayed for his reinstatement with full back benefits.
2. The respondent in his reply has submitted that proper inquiry was held against Sher Khan and that he was found guilty. It has, however further been alleged that on petitioner's demand a fresh inquiry was held in which the petitioner did not participate and that his services were terminated after observing all the formalities,
3. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and persuing the record of the inquiry the following facts cane to light :- On 14-2-76 a committee of the following 4 officers was constituted by the Managing Director to investigate into theft case that had taken place in the Power House
(1) Mr. Allah Bux Awan.
(2) Mr. Shafiq Ahmad.
(3) Mr. Fazal Dad.
(4) Mr. Ijaz Ahmad.
The same day the following letter was addressed to Sher Khan by the Administrative Officer :- "It has been reported that you stole certain material of Power Workshop and sold it to a party across the Railway Line, Chamanzar Colony.
You are therefore required to explain your position forthwith on the receipt of his letter failing which it will be considered that you accept the charge and action will be taken accordingly."
On 16-2-76 the following letter was sent to Sher Khan by the Administra--tive Officer:- "An enquiry in the theft case against you will be held in the G. E.'s Office on 18-2-76 at 8-30 a.m. You are required to attend the enquiry and also bring any witness you like in your defence."
On 20-2-76 the enquiry committee was reconstituted by the Managing Director by his following order :- "Enquiry Committee for theft case is constituted as under
(i) Managing DirectorChairman.
(ii) Commercial OfficerMember.
(iii) Admn. Officer. Member.
(iv) Rep of the Union Mr. Maqbool Ahmad, Since Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad Abbasi, the Counsel of the accused has refused to appear in the Enquiry Mr. Sher Khan should nominate any other person to represent him."
Vide order dated 23-6-76 the name of the Managing Director was removed from the Enquiry Committee.
Thereafter, n enquiry report was submitted on 9-3-76 on which an order was passed on 13-3-76 to the effect that Sher Khan be charge-sheeted. The above, therefore clearly shows that the aforesaid enquiry was a sort of preliminary enquiry for finding out as to whether any action be taken against anybody or not.
4. Charge-sheet was issued to Sher Khan on 19-3-76 which was served on him on 27-3-76. He was required to submit his explanation within 4 days of the receipt of the charge-sheet. Sher Khan submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 30-3-76. He was, thereupon informed on 19-6-76 that the enquiry will be held on 23-6-76 by the Commercial Officer. No enquiry was, however, held on 23-6-76 but according to the order dated 25-6-76 that enquiry was to be held on 26-6-76 instead of 23-6-76. There is, however nothing to show as to whether Sher Khan was informed of this change or not.
5. The Commercial Officer submitted his report on 26-6-76 which is reproduced here for convenience :- "Inquiry report on the subject was made in detail on 2-3-76 and Managing Director's orders were given on 13-3-1976.
(2) Second charge-sheet was issued to Sher Khan who has replied on 2-4-76.
(3) We fixed date of hearing of the witnesses and accused for today but it was only attended by one person Mr. Jahangir Khan and Sher Khan did not attend.
(4) Statement of Mr. Jahangir Khan FH-81 is recorded and attested who has confirmed his previous statement of Exh. I, pages 40-41.
(5) As Mr. Sher Khan has not attended although awaited by the enquiry therefore ex pane decision is to be taken under the law.
(6) It is proved by the independent statement of the lady (Exh D) having been confirmed by all other witnesses by their statement of facts the cane is proved against Mr. Sher Khan.
Submitted for disciplinary action as per finding of the inquiry."
On this enquiry report an order was passed by the Assistant Personnel Officer on 14-7-76 regarding termination of services of the petitioner.
6. In view of the above it is abundantly clear that no inquiry at all worth the name was held as against Sher Khan there is nothing in the inquiry file to show that any second charge-sheet was served on him and there is also nothing to show that he had submitted another reply on 2-4-76.
Sher Khan was never informed that the inquiry was to be held on 26-6-76 and he could not, therefore be proceeded against ex parse. In the inquiry the statement of only one witness namely Jahangir was recorded by the inquiry Officer and a copy of that statement which has been produced shows that it proved nothing. The earlier, a statement of Jahangir Khan was also readout before me from the inquiry file. It also did not reveal that Sher Khan had committed theft. Besides, the charge-sheet given to Sher Khan is very much ambiguous. It does not show as to what was lost, what was recovered and as to which were the articles for the theft of which Sher Khan was charged. Since there has been no inquiry worth the name against, Sher Khan the order terminating his services was therefore illegal. I therefore, direct that he be reinstated with full back benefits. The Management shall, however, be at liberty to take action against him iii a proper manner if it so desires.