1995 PLP 398 (PLC)

M. Ishaq Abbasi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 6th February, 1995. This appeal by the United Bank Limited is directed against the order of Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad in a grievance application of respondent Muhammad Hashim Khoso on the ground that the charge‑sheet served upon the respondent was time‑barred and that the misconduct against him had not been proved in the domestic enquiry which, too, was not conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Standing Order 15 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The respondent was working in the Badin Branch of the appellant Bank as a Cashier. During the course of Audit Inspection of the Branch certain irregularities were brought to the notice of the Branch Manager. Two pay in slips counterfoils, dated 7‑12‑1986 for Rs.15,400 of Account No. 5765 in the name of Noor Ahmed and the other dated 13‑5‑1988 for Rs.84,000 of Account No. 5403 in the name of Muhammad Siddique, were discovered duly stamped and initialled in token of the receipt of the cash in the Bank Branch but these amounts were not credited in the respective Accounts on the said dates. The respondent was working as Cashier on the relevant dates. These amounts were later on entered in the accounts. As the matter was highly suspicious a preliminary enquiry was ordered. The report of the preliminary enquiry was submitted on 15‑5‑1990. Thereafter the case was referred to the Zonal Office and after necessary sanction the respondent was served with a charge‑sheet, dated 9‑10‑1990 after the lapse of 10 months from the discovery of alleged embezzlement. It was the case of the respondent that the account‑holders after depositing the cash at the counter changed their mind and took back the cash and therefore the transaction of payment was not entered in the account books.

2. During the proceedings of grievance application in the Labour Court the formal enquiry papers were not produced by the Enquiry Officer. Instead the papers of preliminary enquiry had been produced. The account‑holders did not complain of any misappropriation of their accounts and they had signed and confirmed the Balance Statement after the alleged dates of fraud. The case of misappropriation had not been made out during the domestic enquiry but since the conduct of the respondent appeared highly suspicious and it was found that possibly the account‑holders had been approached and they had got mixed‑up with the respondent to exonerate him from the charge the appellant Bank dismissed the respondent from Bank employment for the act of misconduct.

3. Mr. Masood A. Khan, Advocate for the appellants, has admitted that the appellant was charge‑sheeted long after the discovery of the fraud and not within thirty days of the date of alleged misconduct or the date on which the misconduct came to the notice of the Bank. That the procedure of preliminary enquiry report to the Zonal Office and the sanction by Zonal Office for a domestic enquiry took a longer period than thirty days and it took nearly 10 months from the report of preliminary enquiry and even several years from the date of actual fraud having been committed. It is also admitted that the enquiry papers of the domestic enquiry that commenced with the service of charge- sheet had not been produced before the Labour Court and the case of misappropriation had not been established against the respondent Cashier. The account‑holders did not support the version that their money had been misappropriated for any length of time.

4. Under the circumstances I cannot find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Labour Court that the charge‑sheet was time‑barred and the alleged misconduct against the respondent had not been proved. I do feel that responsible persons like Cashier in the Nationalised Banks should be above suspicion but since no exemption is granted to the Banks regarding the terms and conditions of service and they are at par with all other employees of industrial and commercial establishments no distinction can be made by applying the Standing Orders in cases of Banks employees. It is for the Banks to keep themselves informed about the Labour Laws and follow them strictly while dealing with the cases of their employees.

5. In the result the order of the Labour Court is maintained and the appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./2421/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.