1996 PLP 276 (PLC)

Respondent Ainul Haq has been heard in person because his Advocate has failed to appear for the last several hearings and there is no likelihood of the respondent being represented by his Legal Advisor. This appeal arises from the order of the VIth Sindh Labour Court, Hyderabad whereby the petition of the respondent under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. was allowed and he was re‑instated with full back benefits.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent was working as a Godown Inspector on a salary of Rs.3,750 per, month at National Bank, Main Branch, Mirpur Khas. According to evidence in the years 1987, 1988 and 1989 30,000 mounds of Phutties and 75,000 lbs cotton seeds were stored in the godown under signature of the respondent. In the year 1989 when the godown was inspected the above stock of cotton goods and cotton seeds was found missing from the godown, the respondent under orders of the Head Office proceeded on L.P.R. from 1‑1‑1990 for 365 days and left. Meanwhile he had already been charge‑sheeted on 8‑12‑1990 before he proceeded on L.P.R. for misappropriation of cotton pods and cotton seeds worth Rs.30,00,000 and 15,00,000 respectively. A domestic enquiry was field and he was found guilty by the Enquiry Officer and dismissed by the Appointing Authority on 30‑12‑1990 one day before the appointed date of his retirement.

3. It is the case of the respondent that the godown was being inspected every month but the goods were found to be intact. That before proceeding on LPR he had not handed over physical charge to his successor but, the Manager had taken over charge on paper. Muhammad Ali Godown Inspector succeeded him and took physical charge on 14‑12‑1988 after the respondent had proceeded on LPR but the loss had already been detected on 14th December, 1988 when the respondent was in service. The action was taken against him in December, 1990 after two years because the file was moving around in the Department.

4. It is the case of the appellant that the employees of National Bank are governed by their own Statutory Rules of Efficiency and Discipline and not by the Standing Order 15(4) allowing only one month's time from the date of misconduct for service of the charge‑sheet. In this case the charge‑sheet was served on 8th December, 1990 when the to loss was detected on 14th December, 1988. Mr. Gulzar Ahmed makes a statement that under the National Bank Rules no time limit is fixed for service of the charge‑sheet. Rule 39 of the National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules, 1973 is as under:‑‑ 1 "

39. Disciplinary action‑‑‑Procedure.‑‑‑(1), Before it is decided to impose any penalty on an employee under rule 36 for an offence of which he has reported guilty, he shall be called upon by the Competent Authority to render a written explanation of the charges against him and show cause by such date as may be specified in this behalf as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The employee's explanation together with the charges against him shall be submitted to the authority competent to award the punishment. "

5. This rule does not provide any time limit for service of notice from the date of misconduct. These are the rules for National Bank Staff while the Standing Orders Ordinance is a general enactment. Under the Standing Orders Ordinance 1968. Order 1 proviso, the Special Statutory Rules of Service applicable to the workman shall apply, and not the Ordinance. Proviso reads as under:‑‑ "Provided that nothing in this Ordinance shall apply to Industrial and Commercial Establishment carried on by or under the Authority of the Federal or any Provincial Government, where Statutory Rules of Service, conduct or discipline are applicable to the workman employed therein."

6. Therefore, the delay in preferring the charge‑sheet does not vitiate the enquiry and subsequent orders of dismissal.

7. The respondent was a Bank employee who had been entrusted with movable property worth several lacs of rupees and he dishonestly misappropriated and disposed of the pledged goods and left nothing in the godown, before proceeding on L.P.R. and yet he has the check to come back and claim re‑instatement in service, under the Standing Orders Ordinance. Such persons cannot be employed in' the Banks where people repose confidence and entrust their valuables. Once the Banking system fails the country will be faced with another disaster. The commercial transactions will lease their sanctity, and trade and commerce will cease.

8. The orders of the Labour Court are accordingly set aside and the appeal of the National Bank is allowed. The Back benefits deposited by the Bank may be refunded. H.B.T./2528/Lb.S Appeal allowed.