1984 PLP 1083 (PLC(CS))

‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3) ‑ Grievance petition against dismissal for misconduct‑Bank employee charged for misappropriation‑Mis appropriation not established but accused found guilty of issuance of pay‑in‑slip without receiving the amount‑Such omission, held, amounted to gross negligence‑Dismissal from service, in circum stances, held, not sustainable‑Order of Labour Court awarding re‑instatement without back benefits upheld by Appellate Tribunal. Saeed-ur‑Rehman for Appellant. Date of hearing: 1st November, 1982. The Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited Braneh, Katchery Bazar, Sargodha has appealed against the decision, dated 19th August, 1982 pasted by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be re‑instated in service declining to pass and order regarding back benefits.

2. A fraud of Rs. 16,000 was committed in the appellant bank in this manner that Mr. Muhammad Saeed, account‑holder delivered Rs. 16,000 to Manager Muhammad Ismail for deposit. Pay‑in‑Slip was prepared by the respondent who was a cashier. He did not enter the factum of deposit of the amount in the relevant record. He was charge sheeted and enquiry was held twice. The first report of the inquiry officer was that the respondent was guilty of gross negligence resulting in loss of Rs. 16,000 to the Bank. The employer directed the inquiry officer to make inquiry again. The inquiry officer accordingly again made inquiry and submitted second report in which he found the respondent guilty of misappropriation of money.

3. During the first inquiry the inquiry officer recorded the statement 6f the respondent only but did not record any prosecution evidence. The inquiry was made on 5th April, 1981 and report is dated 11th April, 1981. Re‑inquiry was started on 29th April, 1981 and thereafter, second report was made. During the second inquiry statement of one prosecution wit ness was recorded. He is not the eye‑witness of the passing of the money. He said that since the receipt was bearing the signatures of the respondent so he received the amount. The case of the respondent throughout was that Muhammad Ismail, Manager had received the amount and he signed the receipt. Photostat of the receipt is on the inquiry file but it does not show that it was signed by the respondent. The signature can be deci phered as 'Ismail' but not as Zaheer-ul‑Hassan'. The complaint of the account‑holder and photo copy of the report of Mr. Muhammad Ismail Manager are on the record. Muhammad Saeed, complainant clerk, said in the complaint that Muhammad Ismail, Manager had received the amount. Muhammad Ismail has in his report exhibited as P‑5 admitted that he had kept the amount of Rs. 16,000 with him. So, this is wrong that respondent received the amount and misappropriated it.

4. However, issuing of pay‑in‑slip without receiving the amount and failing to make entry in the relevant record being breach of regulations of the bank and instructions amount to misconduct. Moreover these acts and omissions amount to gross negligence and were detrimental to the interest of the appellant and also amount to misconduct according to first Wage Commission Award. But these acts and omissions of less heinous to misappropriation of money. Previously the inquiry officer had reported that the respondent was guilty of gross negligence only but the employer remanded the case for further inquiry. It means that in the estimation of the employer the respondent was not liable to dismissal. He awarded the punishment of dismissal because the inquiry officer reported that the respondent was guilty of misappropriation of money. Since charge of misappropriation was not established the dismissal was not sustainable. The learned lower Court, therefore, rightly set aside the dismissal and directed re‑instatement without back benefits although on different grounds.

5. As upshot of the discussion made above I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it in limine. A. E. Appeal dismissed.