1988 PLP 682 (PLC(CS))

"(1) That from 1‑1‑1974 to 31‑7‑1975 some of the cash receipts deposited by M/s. Murree Brewery Company Ltd. for credit into their account were not used to Coe accounted for in the books of the branch on the very day the cash was tendered on the Bank's counter in connivance with Mr. Nazir Hussain Bokhari and other delinquents. The Said cash was used to be utilized unauthorisedly by him during the month but on the last dates of each fortnight/month typeset credits were taken into account in order to tally balance with the statements of accounts which were however, further to the Company correctly. (2) That after 31‑7‑1975 he in connivances Mr. Nazir Hussain Bokhari and other delinquents did not account for the cash receipts in the books of the Branch deposited by M/s Murree Brewery Company Limited for credit into "their account and thus misappropriated an amount of Its 432,685.63. That apart from the above a debit entry of 1‑1‑1974 of Rs.2,93,635.82 from C‑A M‑2 of MBCO to 5TD A/C appears in the Bank statement supplied to them by him but in the current account and STD ledger the entry has been taken Rs.2,19,704 and the difference of Rs.73,931.82 was misappropriated. Thus, the total misappropriated amount comes to as under:‑ (i) Amount of cash receipts Rs.3,58,753.81 deposited by MBC Ltd. (ii) Shortfall in the STD Rs. 73,931.82 ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ Total: Rs.4,32,685.63 That the current account of the Company was closed on 13‑12‑1977 and in order to ensure that the shortfall in the current account was made good before its closure, the following amounts were debited to the Company's Cash Credit Account with his connivance and credited to the Current Account with the result that the balance in the cash credit ledger did not tally with the statements of accounts furnished to the Company." The appellant in reply P‑10 to the charge‑sheet denied the allegations. An enquiry was held wherein only the statement of the appellant was recorded which is R‑1 and on the basis of the admission made therein he was punished. He preferred a departmental appeal to the extent of making a prayer to convert the order of dismissal into order of retirement but it was rejected and the order of dismissal was upheld. He, therefore, after the service of grievance notice brought a grievance petition under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

3. Learned lower Court has dismissed the grievance petition on the ground that the grievance notice was time‑barred and that on the basis of the admission of the appellant contained in R‑1 he was rightly dismissed from service. The grievance notice is not time‑barred. Admittedly the appellant had preferred a departmental appeal, the result of which was not communicated, he therefore, sent a reminder reply to which was received. According to him he had received reply of ‑his reminder on 24‑3‑1983. The date of the reply is 22‑6‑1983. The statement of the appellant to the effect that he had received the registered letter containing reply to his application informing him that the appeal had been disallowed was received by him on 24‑3‑1983 was not rebutted by any oral or documentary evidence. The despatch register in which the reply may have been entered was also not produced in evidence Grievance notice was sent by the appellant on 22‑6‑1983 therefore, from the date of 24‑3‑1983 it was within time. The learned lower Court has, therefore, wrongly said that the grievance notice was time‑barred.

4. So far as the facts of the case are concerned the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant made no admission in R‑

1. He has argued that the appellant did not admit that he had prepared statement of accounts and that it was his duty to make entry in the books. He further argues that since the appellant was Head Cashier it was not within his duties to make the entries and if the case of the respondent was that making of entries was his duty, evidence should have been produced to that effect. He has also argued that there is no admission that the amounts were received by the appellant. The arguments have no force. In reply to the charge‑sheet the appellant admitted that the amounts were received by him but did not admit that they had been misappropriated by him. Para. No.2 of the reply reads as under:‑ "The various amounts of cash received in the branch tendered by the Murree Brewery Company Ltd. Rawalpindi on dates shown in para No.2 of the charge sheet total amounting to Rs.3,58,753.81 were received but not misappropriated or utilized by me. The statements of account for this period were also not prepared or signed by me." Since the appellant in P‑10 said that the various amounts of cash received in the branch were received but not misappropriated by him clearly show that the amounts were received by him and his contention was that they had not been misappropriated by him. Since he had received the amount which means that he was the Cashier at that time, it was his duty to enter the amount in the books. If he was not Cashier but Head Cashier even then since the amount had been received by him it was his duty either to make entry or to see that entries had been made by the person concerned. This is true that there is no evidence that the appellant was at that time a Cashier but since he admits the receipt of the amount it appears that he was the cashier. No doubt in the charge‑sheet the appellant is described as Senior Head Cashier but the charge sheet is dated 15th of October, 1979 whereas the embezzlement was made in 1975, so he may be a Cashier at that time. Since he failed to make the entries in the cash register although he had received the amount he committed misconduct. Actual misappropriation of the money however, is not established from R‑

1. Learned counsel has argued since there were three charges and even if it be said it was the duty of the appellant to enter the amount and he had received the amount, then only charge No.2 stood established, therefore, as held in Chan Pir Shah's case reported in 1981 P L C 984 he could not be dismissed from service. This is true that where there are more than one charges out of which only few have been proved it can be said that if it had been known to the employer that all the charges had not been established he may have awarded punishment short of dismissal but failure on the part t of the appellant to make entries in the cash register of the cash received by him was in itself sufficient to invite punishment of dismissal. His plea that on the asking of the then Manager he did not make the entries is no apology. if such a fraud is committed in a Bank the bank loses confidence in the eyes of its account‑holders, therefore, the bank cannot afford to retain such a person in service.

5. As a result the appeal fails and is dismissed. A.E. l513lLb.P Appeal dismissed.