1984 PLP 934 (PLC(CS))

(b) Industrial dispute

Domestic enquiry-Accused must be given opportunity to explain material brought against him after close of prosecution evidence Failure to record statement of accused after close of prosecution evidence-Serious defect. Mian Abdur Rashid for Appellant. Abdul Sattar Khan Rajput for Respondent. Date of hearing : 29th June, 1983. The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 14th October, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur whereby the respondent was directed to be re instated in service. It was further ordered that the period of dismissal be treated as leave without pay.

2. The facts are that Ghulam Haider, an account holder, was operating his own account and the account of his minor son Javed Iqbal. On 19th February, 1980 he deposited Rs. 3,000 in his own account number and gave check of Rs, 991 relating to the account of his son for the trans fer of the amount in his own account. He was delivered pay-in-slip and he without reading it went away. On 20th September, 1980 he came again after the respondent had been transferred from the seat of cashier and deposited Rs. 10,000 in his own account. On enquiry about total balance he found that Rs. 991 had not been credited to his account. whereupon he made complaint Exh. R.

1. The respondent was charge sheeted and after holding an enquiry was dismissed. One of the grounds given by the learned lower Court for reinstating the respondent is that the witnesses were not given oath. Oath cannot be administered by everyone but only judicial officers or persons specially authorised have authority to administer oath. Enquiry Officers not being judicial officers are not competent to administer oath. If statements in enquiry are made on oath, it would not be objectionable but the enquiry does not become illegal or the statements of the witnesses not ineffective if the witnesses ' are not administered oath. So, the ground that witnesses did not give evidence on oath will not be sufficient to discard their evidence. It has been held in P L D 1967 S C 62 that statements of witnesses recorded in a domestic enquiry are covered by section 13 of the Oaths Act and thus administering of oath is not necessary.

3. However, examination of prosecution witnesses after the statement of the respondent and failure to again record the statement of the respondent after the close of the prosecution evidence is serious defect and the learned lower Court rightly took notice of it. After the close of the B prosecution evidence, opportunity is to be given to the worker under enquiry to explain the material brought against him on the record. Since the statement of the respondent was not recorded after the close of the prosecution evidence, he was prejudiced. Apart from it, no opportunity was given to the respondent in enquiry to produce defence evidence. He did not state that he did not want to lead any evidence in defence. Account holder appeared before the learned lower Court and exonerated the respondent from the charges. The gunman admitted that be had prepared the pay-in-slip etc., and had delivered the amount to the 2nd officer. So, the amount was not embezzled by the respondent. The cheque of Rs. 991 was not produced in evidence, so it cannot be said that in reality it was for transfer of credit. The only mistake of the respondent was that he instead of himself delivering the amount to the account holder sent it to the 2nd officer through the gunman, who had prepared the pay-in-slip. The respondent has, therefore, been rightly re-instated without back benefits.

4. As a result of what has been said above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss the same. A. E. Appeal dismissed.