1984 PLC 1210 (PLP)

Industrial dispute‑ ‑‑ Misconduct‑Bank employee ‑ Negligence and inefficiency ‑Amounts to misconduct forming basis of dismissal ‑ Cashier charged for shortages of amount on different dates and also of opening account in wife's name by forging her signatures ‑Dismissal from service, in circumstances, held, not exceptionable‑‑First Wage Commission Award, Para. 258 (2). Bashir Hussain for Appellant. Irshad Ali Mian for Respondent. Date of hearing: 29th November, 1983. This appeal has been preferred from the decision, dated 3rd July, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service.

2. The allegations against the appellant were that shortages of Rs. 1,000 on 22nd February, 1981 of Rs. 4,000 on 16th March, 1981 and of Rs. 10,000 on 18th March, 1981 were found, that the audit party had detected a shortage of Rs. 110 in 1980 and that he had opened account in the name of his wife forging her signatures on 7th February, 1981. He was duly charge‑sheeted to which he replied. He participated in the enquiry and when after the close of the prosecution evidence his state ment was recorded, he admitted all the allegations but pleaded innocence saying that he had no bad intention. The allegations stand proved by the prosecution evidence also. So far as the shortage of Rs. 110 detected by the audit party in 1980 is concerned, it was fraudulent as before that the appellant had not reported it. Cashiers daily check the cash and give totals, so if there is any shortage, it cannot escape notice. So far as other shortages are concerned, they may not be fraudulent but nevertheless display the inefficiency, carelessness and negligence of the appellant. According to para. 258 (2) of the 1st Wage Board Award, even negligence and inefficiency can be the basis of punishment of dismissal, because they too constitute misconduct. Opening of fictitious account forging the signatures of his wife is also misconduct. A person who commits these acts cannot be tolerated by the banks whose Cashiers have to handle lacs of rupees. No party would dare to deal with the bank where such persons are employed. So, the appellant cannot be thrusted upon the respondent bank. It would have been in the fitness of things if concerned authorities had contented themselves with terminating the services of the appellant, yet order of dismissal is not harsh as the appellant committed forgery also while opening a fictitious account in the name of his wife and so there is no scope to interfere with the impugned order of the learned lower Court.

3. As a result of what has been said above, the appeals fails and is dismissed. A. E. Appeal dismissed.