1990 PLP 606 (PLC)

This is an appeal against the order of the learned Sind Labour Court No.V, Karachi, dated 10‑4‑1988, whereby the grievance application of the appellant was dismissed.

2. I have heard Mr Ali Amjad, Advocate for the appellant and Mr.Farooq Abdul Ghani, Advocate for the respondents.

3. Admitted facts of the case are that the appellant was Cashier of the respondent in Burns Road Branch of the Bank. He is alleged to have assisted Manager and Accountant of Burns Road Branch in committing fraud and misappropriation of total amount of over ten millions of rupees by encashing cheques which bore signatures of one Officer as against Rules of the Bank that the same should be signed by two authorised Officers. He was charge‑sheeted for the same and after domestic enquiry the appellant was dismissed vide order-dated 14‑3‑1984. He filed Review Petition against dismissal which was dismissed on 7‑7‑1984. He is alleged to have served grievance notice dated 3‑10‑1984 and then filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court which was resisted by the respondent on the ground that the charges were duly proved against the respondent in the domestic enquiry.

4. The charges against the appellant may be reproduced as under:‑ It has been reported against you that during your posting as Cashier at Burns Road Branch, Karachi you assisted Manager and Accountant of Burns Road Branch for committing fraud of over Rs.10 millions. a. That cheques of huge amounts singly passed by Mr. Asif A. Sattar were paid by you on counter. Moreover, some of the cheques are also missing from the branch's record. b. That cheque No.488324 dated 2‑3‑1983 for Rs.10,000 drawn on C D Account No.983 of M/s. Ali International was paid in cash on 2‑3‑1983 which was singly passed by culprit Accountant Asif Sattar. The cheque was not posted in the respective account. You are charge‑sheeted to explain your position as to why severe disciplinary action may not be taken against you. Your reply to the charge‑sheet must reach the undersigned within 3 days of receipt of this letter. Sd/‑ Masood A.Siddiqui, Zonal Chief'

5. It may be noted that the specific charges are marked a and b. In the evidence before the Enquiry Officer evidence was laid only with regard to only these two charges and Enquiry Officer's report is also in respect of these two charges a and b and there is no mention in the Enquiry Report or in the evidence before the Enquiry Officer that the appellant assisted the Manager and Accountant in committing fraud and misappropriation of over ten millions rupees. However dismissal order which was impugned before the learned Labour Court only shows that the appellant was charge‑sheeted for assisting the Branch Manager and Accountants Burns Road Branch for committing fraud of over ten millions rupees which charges are stated to have been proved in the Enquiry against him as per report of the Enquiry Officer. The dismissal order does not mention other two charges. Mr.Farooq Abdul Ghani conceded that this order was technically bad and not sustainable, as the Report of the Enquiry Officer does not in clear words show this charge on, which dismissal order has been passed was proved against the respondent.

6. Under the circumstances I set aside the impugned order of the learned Labour Court and also order of dismissal and order reinstatement of the respondent. However, the appellant is being reinstated on technical grounds therefore I allow fifty per cent back benefits. The respondents are at liberty to either pass fresh order on the basis of enquiry already held or hold fresh enquiry on the charge already framed and then pass any order that is deemed proper and the appellant would have right to challenge the order, if aggrieved. A.E./1441/Lb.S Appeal allowed.