' Abdul Hamid appellant was employed as Cleaner in the Workshop of Central Transport Training Institute of Pakistan Road Transport Board. On 18th April, 1974 he was dismissed from service on the charge of misconduct by Mr. Aurang Zeb, the Principal of Transport Institute. The allegation against the appellant was that he had disobeyed the orders of Mr. Aziz Gill, Assistant Workshop Manager on 2nd March, 1974 when the latter had directed him to remove the tyres of vehicles No, R/A 9400 and PRA 578 and that he flatly refused to obey this order and adopted an insolent and indecent attitude.
2. On 13th June, 1974 the appellant filed an application against the respondent before the Junior Labour Court No, 1, Lahore under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, seeking his re-instatement with consequential benefits. He contended that he was an active member of Road Transport Corporation Labour Union. The said Union had levelled many accusations against Mr. Aurang Zeb, Principal of Central Training Institute of Lahore. The allegations were probed into by Habib Ullah, Inspector, Anti-Corruption, R. T. C., Lahore. Mr. Aurang Zeb was found guilty and was removed from service. Mr. Aurang Zeb again managed his restoration to his post and started victimizing the members of the R. T. C. Labour Union. Appellant was also victimized. He was falsely accused of disobeying the orders of Assistant Workshop Manager. Bogus enquiry papers were prepared. He was not afforded with an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and to show cause.
3. The application of the appellant was resisted by the respondent who pleaded inter alia that an independent enquiry was instituted to look into the charge of misconduct against the appellant. An impartial enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and held the appellant guilty of the charge.
Thereafter the appellant was served with a show-cause notice and was ultimately dismissed after observing all the prescribed formalities. Ata Muhammad, Khalil Ahmed, Habib Ullah Khan, ex- Inspector Police, Muhammad Saleem, as President of R. T. C. Labour Union and Abdul Ghafoor Nishtar testified on behalf of the appellant. The appellant also appeared as his own witness before the learned Lower Court. Abdul Aziz Gill, Khawaja Ali Muhammad Ghafoor appeared as witnesses for the respondent before the learned Court below.
4. The learned Lower Court after considering the parties evidence held that the domestic enquiry against the appellant was in order and thus the order of his dismissal was not bad in law.
Consequently the appellant's petition filed under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was dismissed by learned Lower Court by its order dated 31st December, 1974.
5. The said order has been impugned through the present appeal. It is noteworthy that the respondent has produced charge-sheet Exh. R. W. 1/1 before the learned Lower Court on the basis which the enquiry was held against the appellant and he was ultimately dismissed. The allegations contained in this charge-sheet which are in vernacular read as follows :- {{URDU TEXT}}
6. An application was filed by the appellant in this Court alleging that he has been able to trace out the copy of the charge-sheet served on him and the said copy did not contain the words:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' The appellant therefore requested to produce additional evidence before this Court to prove that the above words were added subsequently in charge-sheet Exh. R. W. 1/1 to award major penalty of dismissal to the appellant and that in this manner as a result of forgery he was victimized. In the interest of justice the request of the appellant was allowed and he was permitted to produce additional evidence.
7. The appellant examined himself in his additional evidence as A. W. 1 and produced the original copy of the charge-sheet Exh. A/1 which was served on him. The charge-sheet does not contain the word". - {{URDU TEXT}} ' The appellant has further stated in this Court that he was a Cleaner. The removing and fitting of tyres was the duty of the tyre man. As ' Cleaner his duty was to clean the spare parts or the parts removed from the engine. He worked with the fitter and machanic.
8. In rebuttal of the additional evidence Muhammad Yaquoob Court Clerk was produced. He identified the signatures Exh. A-1/1 of Capt. Aurang Zeb, Principal of the Central Transport Training Institute. This witness stated that Workshop Cleaner was supposed to perform all the duties which he was ordered to perform by the officer concerned. If he was ordered to remove the tyre it was his duty to do so. This witness admitted that he had not done any course in the workshop and therefore could not define the duties of various employees employed in the Workshop. He also admitted that he had not seen the duty roster meant for various employees of the workshop and the Transport Training Centre. He admitted it correct that there was a category of employees in the Transport Training Institute who are designated as volcanizers and another category was of tyre- men. This witness also disclosed that Capt. Aurang Zeb was still alive and was posted at Gulberg Depot of the appellant.
9. Capt. Aurang Zeb was the most appropriate person to be produced in rebuttal to explain as to under what circumstances the words {{URDU TEXT}} were present in the charge-sheet. Exh. R. W. 1, produced before the lower Court and these words were missing in the copy of the charge-sheet Exh. A-1 served on the appellant.
10. I have very minutely persued the contents of the charge-sheet Exh. R. W.-1. I have examined the same with the help of the magnifying glass. It appears that the words {{URDU TEXT}} are slightly in a thicker ink as compared to the ink used for the rest of the contents of the charge-sheet. I have therefore come to the conclusion that the words {{URDU TEXT}} have been subsequently inserted in the charge-sheet Exh. R. W. 1 by the forgery. These words are not present in the original charge- sheet served on the appellant which is Exh. A-1. It appears that the Management of the respondent considered that since it was ordinarily not the duty of a Cleaner to remove and fix the tyres of the vehicles as it was the duty of tyre man to do so, the appellant may not be punished and therefore in order to award the major penalty of dismissal to the appellant forgery was committed in respect of charge-sheet Exh. R. W.
1. It is thus evident that the appellant has been punished on the basis of a forged charge-1 sheet. It cannot therefore be assumed that an independent and impartial enquiry has been held within the meaning of S.
0. 15 (4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.
11. In view of the above it is concluded that the dismissal of the appellant has been ordered illegally.
The appeal is accordingly accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the appellant is ordered to be re-instated with back benefits.