1994 PLP 336 (PLC)

(2) Pay‑in‑slips for cash amounting to Rs.25,710 and Rs.18,647 on account of Railway cash collection (counterfoils of which. were issued by him to the Railway concerned official on 17‑6‑1985) bear the date as 17‑6‑1985. Signatures of the concerned Railway official appearing on these slips also bear the date as 17‑6‑1985. Cash Received Stamp affixed by him on these slips also bear the date as 17‑6‑1985, all evidencing receipt of cash from the Railway Authorities in the evening of 17‑6‑1985 whereas the same has been accounted for in the branch in the evening of 8‑6‑1985. He neither handed over these vouchers to the joint custodian of cash, Evening Banking nor entered the cash receipts in his Cashier's Receipt Book Evening Banking on 17‑6‑1985. He also failed to keep the Bank cash safely in the joint custody. (3) The Area Manager had issued an office order on 17‑6‑1985 instructing Mr. Amanullah Abbasi, Cashier to collect Railway cash with immediate effect. Violating the above instructions of the Area Manager, he himself went for Railway cash collection on 17‑6‑1985 with ulterior motive though Mr. Amanullah, Cashier was on duty on 17‑6‑1985. He should submit his explanation to the Enquiry Officer, Mr. Athar Hussain, Vice‑President, Inspection; National Bank of Pakistan, Principal Office, Karachi, who has been appointed under Rule 39(1) to conduct enquiry under Rule 39 (2) of National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1980. Mr. Hayat Muhammad Usto, (Sd.) Head Cashier, (Muhammad Saeed Butt), (under suspension), Member Executive Board National Bank of Pakistan, (Administration). Zonal Office, Larkana.

2. He had submitted a reply which was found to be unsatisfactory. On the 16th of March, 1986 enquiry was ordered and as a result thereof he was compulsorily retired on 18‑8‑1986.

3. He had preferred a Departmental appeal and later on sent a grievance notice on the 30th of September, 1986. Then came the petition before the Labour Court.

4. The petition came to be resisted by the respondent. It was alleged that while posted at Jacobabad he had misappropriated Rs.46,000 which was partly made good by him from the Railway cash and partly from his own resources on the 18th of June, 1985 in the presence of the Zonal Head, Larkana and the Area Manager of the Branch. It was further contended that the petition was not maintainable and therefore was liable to be dismissed.

5. The petitioner was his own witness and Ali Hassan Sayyal, Assistant Vice‑President and Ather Hussain the Enquiry Officer appeared on behalf of the respondent.

6. The Labour Court found that the domestic enquiry under the 1980 (Staff) Service Rules was illegal and even the findings of the Enquiry Officer were based on inferences without any documentary proof. Otherwise too it was barred by time. It therefore allowed the petition and ordered reinstatement with full back benefits resulting in this, appeal.

7. Admittedly the enquiry was held under the 1980 (Staff) Service Rules. The said Rules, unlike the former 1973 Rules, were non‑statutory and it is a settled law by now that as such, the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance will be applicable to the cases of an aggrieved workman of the respondent‑Bank. (See 1993 SCMR 105). In this view of the matter the mischief of Standing Order 15(4) will be attracted. As the incident had taken place and was duly known to the appellant on the 17th/18th of June, 1985, and the charge‑sheet was given to the respondent on 20‑1‑1986. Patently it is beyond one month and the entire inquiry proceedings and the resultant order of retirement will stand vitiated. It is not necessary under the circumstances to look into the fairness or otherwise of the inquiry proceedings.

8. As to the question of back benefits, however, I do not agree with the findings of the Labour Court.

9. On the showing of the respondent himself the amount allegedly misappropriated was not being traced by him and was ultimately located after considerable search. That will be nothing more than talking with his tongue in the cheek, because information of this shortfall had been sent to the Zonal Headquarters and some people from there had arrived on the scene. It is also to be seen that the respondent against the instructions had gone to the Railway Authorities and collected a sum of Rs.44,537 from there on the evening of 17th of June, 1985 as per two pay‑in‑slips bearing the date and balance was made good from his own resources. It also appears that he had neither handed over these vouchers to the Joint Custodian of Cash Evening Banking, nor entered the cash receipts in his Cashier's Receipt Book, Evening Banking on 17‑6‑1985. Non‑deposit of this amount with the Bank on the same date itself would constitute misappropriation. This clearly shows that the proceedings started against the respondent was not just a storm in a tea cup but was well‑founded. Nothing smacks of enmity. It is true that the evidence of the Bunya with whom the respondent's father had pledged the family ornaments to raise the money was not examined but that can be left alone because the collection from the Railway remained unaccounted for a whole day. Looking to the principles laid down in the case of Muhammad Bashir v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal 1991 SCMR 2087, to my mind he will not be entitled to the award of back benefits at all. I will therefore modify the impugned order and partly allow the appeal. H.B.T./2277/Lb.S. Orders accordingly.