1990 PLP 718 (PLC)

‑‑‑ Domestic enquiry‑‑‑Charge against accused not established by evidence produced during enquiry‑‑‑Verdict of guilty returned by Enquiry officer, not approved by Labour Appellate Tribunal. Ch. Sadiq M. Warraich for Appellant. Kh. Farooq Ahmad for Respondent. Date of hearing: 23rd May, 1989. The appeal captioned above emerges from the decision dated 19‑2‑1989 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. VI, Rawalpindi, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service has been dismissed.

2. The allegation for which the appellant was dismissed from service is contained‑in charge‑sheet Exh. R‑2, which is to the effect that he was involved in the grant of an agriculture production loan to the tune of Rs.6,000 in favour of his brother Mr. Rehmat Shah, the loan having been granted by Mirza Arif Baig, Manager. It is further mentioned in the charge‑sheet that all the documents pertaining to the said loan were written by the appellant but his brother denied the liability. In the charge‑sheet the details of the involvement of the appellant in the loan case are not given. The report relating to the appellant starts from page No.

1. The Inquiry Officer has not made reference to the evidence by which the involvement of the appellant in the taking of loan of Rs.6,000 in favour of his brother may have been proved. He has not said how it was proved that it was the appellant who prepared demand voucher and entered the same in the relevant registers after filling in the loan application form. The reason given by the Inquiry Officer for connecting the appellant with the fraud is that the like amount of Rs.6,000 was deposited in S.B. Account No. 982 of the Senior Assistant, which according to him, was evident from S.B. Account's credit voucher prepared and signed by the appellant. He has not made reference to any evidence by which the credit voucher was proved to have been prepared and signed by appellant. No reason has been given by the Inquiry Officer how he came to the conclusion that the loan in question was availed of on 21‑11‑1984. On one hand he had deplored that there was nothing on the record to show that the signatures of Rehmat Shah appearing on the loan application were got compared with Specimen Signature Card or even with the earlier loan application of the said person. He has remarked that it appeared that the evidence had been wilfully and purposely destroyed. If the evidence had been destroyed, then question arises how the charge had been established. Even if it be said that the loan application was signed by Rehmat Shah, brother of the appellant, this alone would not be sufficient to say that the appellant was involved in the matter. Even Rehmat Shah has disowned the loan form and the taking of loan. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the appellant made admission in reply to the charge?sheet but this is also wrong. He clearly stated in reply Exh. R‑3 that Mina Arif Baig, Manager, had asked him to get the signatures of his brother Rehmat Shah on the loan application but when the appellant approached Rehmat Shah, the latter refused and he (the appellant) accordingly informed the Manager who said that the papers be returned to him and he would himself get the signatures of Rehmat Shah. It is clear from this that the appellant did not make any admission.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent has also argued that since in Exh. R‑3 the appellant said that Mirza Arif Baig, Manager had assured him that he would pay back the loan and since Mirza Arif Baig was a Manager, overtime, therefore, he did not report the matter to the higher authorities. The appellant was involved in the matter. Merely not reporting the matter to the higher authorities is not sufficient to conclude that the appellant was involved in the fraud. There is no charge that the appellant did not inform the higher authorities, therefore, the above statement made by the appellant in reply Exh. R‑3 cannot be used against him.

4. The other argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is that although there was no charge against the appellant with regard to Rs.15,000 yet since he tried to explain it, it shows that he was involved in the fraud. The question of withdrawal of Rs.15,000 has not been proved to have any connection with the loan of Rs.6,000, therefore, the explanation of the appellant in that respect does not in any manner connect him with the said loan. So far as Noor Muhammad Malik, witness who appeared in the inquiry, is concerned, he deposed that S.B. Account credit voucher dated 21‑11‑1984 for Rs.6,000 showed a cash receipt and deposit in S.B. Account No. 982 of the appellant. He also deposed that the voucher was duly signed by the appellant, that all the papers with regard to the said loan were prepared by the appellant and that the entries in the payment ledger were made by him. He suggested that Nawab Khan, Cashier, be also examined and the remaining evidence he (the witness) would give in the presence of said Nawab Khan. In cross‑examination he admitted that he had prepared all the papers of agricultural loan in his handwriting as he prepared the papers of other loans. He also said that Rs.6,000 which were deposited on the same day in his S.B. Account, though by him but added that the said money has no connection with the advance in dispute. It does not appear if this is the statement of the appellant recorded under the item `cross‑examination of the appellant'. If this is the admission of the witness, then it absolves the appellant from the liability and if it is the admission of the appellant, then it has no effect, because during the examination of a prosecution witness no statement of the accused can be recorded. Rather the time for recording the statement of the accused is after the close of the prosecution evidence. The statement of Malik Noor Muhammad was again recorded on the following day on 22‑10‑1984 but in that statement he did not implicate the appellant but laid every responsibility upon Mirza Arif Baig. He deposed that Mirza Arif Baig in the capacity of Manager had sanctioned the loan of Rs.6,000 in the name of Rehmat Shah. The processing of loan application had not been done according to the bank rules. His remaining evidence is against Mirza Arif Baig, Manager, which is in respect of the charges levelled against him. Nawab Khan, Cashier, gave evidence about Rs.15,000 but he made deposition against Mirza Arif Baig and did not implicate the appellant. It is thus apparent that the charge against the appellant was not established by evidence produced during the inquiry. As mentioned above, the Inquiry Officer has himself said that the handwriting and signatures of the appellant were not got compared with the admitted and specimen signatures. It is thus apparent that the verdict of guilty was returned by the Inquiry Officer without any evidence. The learned lower Court did not go deep into the matter and thus erred in finding that the case against the appellant had been proved. He has not made reference to any evidence recorded during the inquiry and this is the cause for recording wrong judgment.

5. As upshot of the discussion made above, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the order of dismissal and the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the appellant is directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits. He deposed in his statement that he was jobless from the date of his dismissal. A.E./685/Lb. P ???????????