1986 PLP 813 (PLC)

(3) That you made payments as Cashier on Cash Debit Vouchers (SF‑23) without obtaining signatures of the recipients on the back of vouchers. (4) That one Saeed Muhammad CD A/c 19 deposited a cash of Rs.1,500 on 10‑7‑1982 vide Slip No.591575 the receipt of which was acknowledged by you duly singly signed under Branch round Rubber Stamp used for Bill receipts. The amount was accounted for by you on 3‑8‑1982 after misappropriating for 24 days. (5) That you had knowledge of pocket banking of Mr. Shafi Muhammad, ex‑Manager, but you did not disclose the fact to your superiors and assisted him to misappropriate Bank/Public Funds." The appellant submitted reply to the charge‑sheet denying the charges in toto. The enquiry was held on 7‑12‑1982, and after 5 months, namely,` on 14‑5‑1983, he was dismissed from service. Hence, the grievance notice was given to the respondent‑Bank and the same was not answered. The grievance petition was accordingly filed in the Labour Court.

3. In the reply statement, the stand taken by the respondent‑Bank was that the appellant fradulently transacted the payment in collusion with the Branch Manager, Shafi Muhammad and caused loss to the respondent‑Bank.

4. The Labour Court examined the appellant and he was cross examined. One, Muhammad Umer Memon was examined on behalf of the respondent‑Bank and he was also cross‑examined.

5. The appeal was argued by the learned counsel Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi for the appellant and Mr. Bashir Awan, Advocate, on behalf of the respondent‑Bank.

6. The learned counsel of the appellant read out each item of the charge‑sheet and discussed every charge minutely before this Tribunal and pointed out that nothing is proved against the appellant specially to establish the charge of misappropriation of the amounts. The collusion with the Bank Manager, Shafi Muhammad is also not proved. As regards the first charge, namely, that the appellant connived the acts of Shafi Muhammad to commit the misappropriation at the branch, no positive evidence is adduced to prove how the appellant connived the Manager who is now convicted by the Special Judge for misappropriating the money. The Special Judge did not consider the connivance of the present appellant and acquitted him. Specific instances of misappropriation are not given by the respondent‑Bank and as such this is a mere surmise of the presumption.

7. As regards charges Nos. 2 and 3, the actual parties concerned were not consulted and their statements were not recorded and, therefore, the misappropriation is not proved. However, there is no positive evidence to show that these amounts were misappropriated, although the counter‑signature of the appellant is on the voucher but it is not proved that this amount was not paid to the proper party whose account number is available and whose cheque is also available. For instance, the voucher and the cheque in respect of the Account No.317 in the name of Muhammad Ibrahim. Now, in the case of Muhammad Ibrahim, it is not proved that Muhammad Ibrahim was a bogus person. The learned counsel for the respondent‑Bank, Mr. Bashir Awan failed to explain as to how the misappropriation is spelt out from this voucher. There is no evidence on` record to show that this amount or similar amounts were misappropriated. If there is any other trick, it is not explained by the respondents' counsel.

8. Then, the charge‑sheet further recites other vouchers which do not bear party's signatures on the back of vouchers. This is also similar case as explained above. The signature of party is not obtained only because his account number and the cheque number are given in the voucher. In cross‑examination of the witness, Muhammad Umar of the respondent‑Bank, it occurs‑‑"it is correct that the transfer vouchers are not to be signed by the party concerned." Therefore, the signatures of the parties are not necessary.

9. The learned counsel, Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi has further argued that Saeed Muhammad deposited a cash of Rs.1,500 on 10‑7‑1982. It was accounted by the appellant Cashier on 3‑8‑1982 and hence, the allegation is that he has misappropriated the amount for 24 days. In the written reply by the appellant to the respondent‑Bank on this charge, it is said that he had given the amount to Shafi Muhammad the Manager who kept it with himself and then he gave back the amount to Gul Hassan the appellant after 24 days which was duly deposited. The misappropriation of the amount was done by Shafi Muhammad, the Manager of the bank and not by Gul Hassan, the appellant, who was mere the Cashier. Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi states in his arguments that after all he was a cashier and subordinate of the Manager and he abided by the dictates of the Manager. The act was not deliberate on his part with an intention to misappropriate the amount altogether.

10. As regards the charge No.5 which relates to pocket banking committed by the ex‑Manager, the charge against the appellant is that he did not disclose this fact of pocket banking to the superior officers. It is argued by the learned counsel‑ that how he could know that the pocket banking is carried out by the Manager and the entire responsibility was that of the Manager and not of the appellant. Since, he did not know he could not report the matter to the Superior Officers.

11. The charge‑sheet, every item of it, is discussed and argued by the learned counsel and I find that nothing worth while is proved against the appellant. The evidence on record is that of the appellant himself and the witness of the respondent‑Bank. I have read the evidence and I am not able to make out that any charge is proved against the appellant. This and similar matters occur in the banking organizations when there is no strict supervision and day to day checking by the Senior Officers. The Bank's Officers should be vigilant to check the transactions minutely and not to send Inspection team after one year when the mischief', if at all, is committed. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, it was necessary to prove in the voucher that account number was a bogus account number and the cheque was also a bogus cheque. There is no evidence on this point at all and the appellant cannot be held responsible for the acts of Shafi Muhammad. So far the case of the appellant is concerned, he appears on the face of it to be absolved from these charges and his dismissal was not warranted, and was improper, I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and re‑instate the appellant in the respondent‑Bank with all the back benefits forthwith.

12. Before parting with the papers, I may observe that the bank management should be strict and. the supervising powers should be so tight that not a single transaction should go undetected by the respondent‑Bank. A. E. Appeal accepted.