1. DECISION ' This is an appeal filed on behalf of the Government Transport Service, Multan, against the order of the Learned Junior Labour Court, dated 30th April 1973 whereby, Muhammad Ashraf, Welder (Workman) was re-instated with back benefits. He was dismissed from service by the appellant Management on 21st April 1973 on the charge of theft of 10 iron Cost Rodes. He was given the charge-sheet and after an enquiry being held against him, he was given second show-cause notice on 21st April 1973 and dismissed on the same date.
2. ' The learned lower Court held that as the appellant-Management declined to change the Enquiry Officer, who was objected to by the respondent on the ground of being an important member of the appellant-Management. The enquiry could not be said to have been proceeding on proper lines and accorded with the ends of natural justice.
3. ' In the present appeal the respondent has raised the same plea besides objecting to the validity of the second show-cause notice in which no time was given to the respondent to file his explanation or to be personally heard in the matter. As to the first contention I do not agree with the learned counsel for the respondent or the learned lower Court that the charge of an Enquiry Officer at the instance of the respondent was necessary and there was any defect in the enquiry in not changing the enquiry officer, because it is the inhesrent right of the appellant Management to appoint an Enquiry Officer belonging to the officers of the appellant Management, and not any person outside the Management as was requested by the respondent. The contention therefore loses ground and was not rightly adopted by the learned lower Court. However, the second contention contains force and can scarcely be overlooked. The enquiry proceedings were started on 20-4-1973 and the report was made on the same date. The impugned order discussed was made by the District Manager, Government, Transport Service, Multan, the next date on 21-4-1973 simultaneously with the second show-cause notice. It is urged, on behalf of the appellant-Management that the respondent voluntarily approached on that date to be heard in person and therefore the final order of dismissal was passed against him. I cannot see eye to eye with such a plea as the rule of second show-cause notice could not be disregarded as to legal implications. There is no application on the record to show that the respondent offered himself to be heard in person on that very date. The purpose of justice was thus not served in depriving the respondent of the opportunity to submit his explanation to the second show-cause notice in due time as prescribed under the rules which could have been less than one week. On this view of the matter the appeal contains no force and the same is dismissed for reasons other than those given in the impugned order.