1995 PLP 278 (PLC)

M.A.K. Azmati for Appellant. Muhammad Faruq Abdul Ghani, Representative for Respondent No.l. Date of hearing: 22nd January, 1995. This appeal arises from an order of Labour Court No. VII, Sukkur, dismissing the grievance application filed by the appellant against his dismissal from service.

2. The facts, in brief, are that appellant Mashooque Murtaza Rashdi was employee of the Allied Bank of Pakistan posted at Shahdadkot Branch of the Bank as a Cashier. On 18‑1‑1992 at about 1‑00 p.m. the appellant quite slipped out from back door of the Bank Branch after pocketing Rs.1,94,100 unchecked cash in hand. He, then continuously absented himself from the Bank from 19‑1‑1992 to 15‑2‑1992. The efforts were made by the then Manager of Allied Bank, Shahdadkot l9ranch to recover the misappropriated amount. It was found from the Cash Books that the amount taken away from the counter came to Rs.1,94,100 as checked cash. The father of the respondent was approached who paid up this amount on behalf of his son. The respondent was, then, served with the charge‑sheet and he replied that he had left the Branch with oral permission of the Manager as he had suffered an attack of Kidney pain: That he remained under treatment from 18‑1‑1992 to 15‑2‑1992. He, however, did not produce any medical certificate regarding the alleged illness and produced such certificate, for the first time, during the proceedings in the Labour Court. The domestic enquiry held against the respondent was then concluded, and he was dismissed from service. The application of the respondent made to the Bank was produced before the Enquiry Officer mentioning admission therein of the misappropriation by the respondent: A report was, then, lodged with the Police and the case of Criminal Breach of Trust by the Bank Servant is still pending.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that the domestic enquiry was not held according to law because the appellant was not served with a written report of the Enquiry Officer nor a second show cause notice against his dismissal. On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Faruq Abdul Ghani, learned Representative for the Bank has pointed out the case law that the requirement of a second show‑cause notice, under principle of natural justice, depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In this case the respondent was fully aware of the charges against him the amount said to have been misappropriated by him was actually paid back to reimburse the Bank for the loss. No prejudice has, therefore, been caused to the appellant in this case by non-supply of enquiry report and punishment of dismissal from service. As Bank Employee dealing with cash, he knew fully well, that he could not be retained in the job calling for utmost honesty and confidence. The learned counsel has cited the case of Sarfraz v. General Manager (Leaf) Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. and others 1988 SCMR 1352. In that case the Supreme Court was informed by the learned counsel for the appellant that there were no rules for holding an enquiry and that the procedure prescribed under Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, would be applicable to the enquiry proceedings. The Supreme Court held: "This provision was interpreted in Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Guftar Shah PLD 1981 SC 225 and it was held that neither the giving of second show‑cause notice nor the supply of the report of the inquiry officer is a requirement of principles of natural justice'. All that is needed in the circumstances is to give a fair opportunity of hearing and defence to the other side so as to fulfil the requirement to natural justice. Therefore, the assumption that a second show‑cause notice and a copy of the inquiry report was necessary to be supplied before the penalty is imposed is erroneous as this requirement was spelt out from the N.‑NV.F.P. Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, on the facts and circumstances of the case to satisfy the requirement of prejudice said to have been caused to the Government servant. It is always now a question to be resolved on the facts of each case as to whether such a requirement was necessary considering the element of prejudice. The Tribunal, therefore, erred in law to rely upon the decision in Syed Mir Muhammad's case:'

4. There is, therefore, no substance in this appeal which is accordingly, dismissed. H.B.T./2406/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.