1994PLC 113 (PLP)

However, two principles are now established under the judgments of this Court. (a) that back benefits do not automatically follow the order of re instatement where the order of dismissal or removal has been set aside; and (b) as regards the matter of onus of proof ...

8. Re‑instatement having come in the main, as a result of delayed charge‑sheet and defective domestic enquiry the facts, therefore, culminating in the order of dismissal have to be looked into. The charge was as follows:‑‑ "Mr. Khadim Hussain, Cashier, NBP Sinjohoro Branch is hereby called upon to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975, in force for the following acts of omissions and commissions committed by him in the branch as Cashier:‑‑ (1) On 8‑5‑1980, Mr. Shabbit Ahmed, Bank valued client, handed over a sum of Rs.300 to him for credit of his Account No. 735. (2) He did not credit the amount in the account of Mr. Shabbir Ahmed and misappropriated the same with mala fide intention. (3) On 21‑2‑1981, Mr. Shabbir Ahmed lodged a complaint that he has given a sum of Rs.300 to Mr. Khadim Hussain for depositing the CA. No. 735 but the amount in question was not deposited till seven months. (4) After the lodgement of the complaint with Manager, Mr. Khadim Hussain, Cashier confined the contents of complaint and deposited a sum of Rs.300 in Sundry Deposit A/C on 22‑2‑1991 showing that the amount was found in excess on the counter on 8‑5‑'1980 for which he has not reported to Branch Sr. Head Cashier/Manager on that day. He should submit his explanation within a period of three days receipt hereof without fail. (Sd.) (WAHID BUX GHURYANI), ZONAL HEAD.

9. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the enquiry proceedings I will not advert to what the respondent had to say therein. But he had the following to say in his cross‑examination before the Labour Court in his petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. "I had given pay‑in‑slip and Rs.300 in cash found in excess with on 8‑5‑1980 to the Senior Head Cashier for deposit. I continued to attend my duty even after 8‑5‑1980.1 did not check myself if that Rs.300 were deposited or not as I placed confidence on my superior officers. My enmity with Branch Manager and Senior Head Cashier started after the question of this amount of Rs.300 this enmity started about 7/8 months of the said question of excess. I did not check and verify the deposit of Rs.300 even after this enmity. It is incorrect that I prepared a fresh pay‑in‑slip by my own hand on 21‑2‑1981. It is incorrect I after preparing its slip on 21‑2‑1981, myself deposited Rs.300. I see one pay‑in‑slip dated 22‑2‑1981 and say it bears my signature and I produce it as Exh. R/3. It, however, was filled in by someone else. It is correct that through the pay‑in‑slip excess amount of Rs.300 found on 8‑5‑1980, was deposited. Voluntarily states that I had myself not paid the amount for deposit. I do not remember if I had stated so in my explanation or gr. notice or in petition filed hereunder. I had definitely stated so before Enquiry Officer."

10. Thus, on the showing of the appellant himself it cannot be said that the proceedings taken against him were unwarranted or uncalled for. Instead it had been actuated partly or wholly on account of the conduct attributable to him.

11. In my humble view the respondent Khadim Hussain would not be entitled to any back benefits at all.

12. The appeal from the order of the Labour Court is allowed and the appeal on remand is partly allowed. Orders accordingly. H.B.T./2244/Lb.S Orders accordingly.