1987 PLP 164 (PLC)

6. The following is the charge‑sheet:‑‑ "(1) That a fictitious credit of Rs.10,000, dated 13‑5‑1982 has been afforded by you in S.B. A/C. No. 6074 in the name of Messrs Muhammad Ramzan son of Muhammad Juman though no credit was received in the account. (2) That you deliberately put forged initials of Mr. Syed Iftikhar Ahmed, Sub‑Manager against fictitious balance drawn in the above‑noted account of Mr. Muhammad Ramzan after affording a forged credit of Rs.10,000 which was actually not received in the parties account. (3) On 15‑5‑1982, you issued token No. 32 on Cheque No. 625230 for Rs.10,000 drawn in the above account, though the cheques in question was a forged one and the defects in the said instruments could easily be detected as there was obvious alteration of account number and overwriting of date was also visible. (4) That you made posting of the above referred cheque into ledger account in spite of the fact that cheque series did not tally with the cheque book series issued in the account though it was your prime responsibility to tally the cheque series before posting the cheque. (5) That it is thus quite apparent that you have been found negligent, you tried to cheat the Bank and embezzle the amount which proves your misconduct."

7. This charge‑sheet was answered by the respondent. He denies the fictitious entries of Rs.10,000 having been entered by him, on 13‑5‑1982. He denies the deliberate forged initials to have been entered by him. He bona fidely and in good faith issued the token and he entered the cheque in the ledger book and passed it on in the process. He was not negligent.

8. I have perused the first enquiry conducted by Muhammad Zubair Shahidi. The Enquiry Officer, Mr. Shahidi, does not prove the first allegation as regards the fictitious credit of Rs.10,000, dated 13‑5‑1982 It was found to be great surprise and there is no evidence worth while. Charge No. 2 is found to be not proved and subsequent charges upto No. 5 were not proved.

9. Then suddenly on 13‑2‑1983 it was ordered by Mr. Naeem Khan, Assistant Vice‑President that certain matters on record could not be discussed and that a separate enquiry be conducted by Mr. Abdul Shakoor Memon. Mr. Abdul Shakoor Memon conducted the enquiry and I have read the said enquiry. Mr. Abdul Shakoor Memon gave the finding on Charge No. 1 to be not proved, Charge No. 2 to be not proved. Charge No. 3 he was found to be negligent in not detecting the defects in the instruments (the cheque) before issuing the token. Charge No. 5 was not proved. This enquiry ended and report submitted on 16‑3‑1983. The decision was taken on 21‑11‑1983 after the lapse of eight months. Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Khan, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even the Second Enquiry Officer also did not find the respondent guilty of the negligence but for this conclusion the Enquiry Officer did not give any reasons. He also vehemently urged that report of the handwriting expert was not brought on record of this Court and there is no evidence to show as to which writing the "extracts" were sent to the Handwriting Expert. The learned counsel for the respondent has also pointed out that the appointment of second Enquiry officer was made by the Zonal Chief. The Enquiry Report was submitted to the same Zonal Chief and the same Zonal Chief passed the dismissal order. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the Head Office was in the picture.

10. After careful examination of the entire evidence great force appears in the contention of the respondent. It is quite apparent that in their zeal to get rid off the respondent the appellants altogether ignored the fundamental principles of natural justice. The Zonal Chief was himself the complainant principle prosecution witness. He appointed the Enquiry Officer. Syed Anwar Ali dismissed the respondent. Following is the text of the dismissal order: ‑‑ "For certain allegations, you were charge‑sheeted vide our letter No. ZON/Staff/230, dated 18‑5‑1982, to which you submitted reply, on 22‑5‑1982, which was considered to be not satisfactory. Consequently an enquiry was conducted, in which you participated, and were afforded full opportunity of defence. On your admitted words, figures, writing and signature, opinion of Handwriting Expert was also obtained, and taking into consideration of the enquiry report, and proceedings coupled with report of the Handwriting Expert, it has been established that you are guilty of the acts of misconduct. The management has decided to dismiss you from Bank service."

11. The Handwriting Expert was not produced in Court to depose against the respondent. He was also not examined nor any of his opinion was brought on record in the Court proceedings. Whether or not the Handwriting Expert was consulted it is not known. It is mere C assertion of the dismissal order that Handwriting Expert was also consulted. What did the Handwriting Expert opine? This entire matter is the fictitious assertion in the dismissal order by Syed Anwar Ali. Therefore, in the absence of the report of the Handwriting Expert it is not warranted that the respondent may be dismissed.

12. After having considered all the aspects of this case it appears that the respondent has become victim of the two enquiries. One enquiry absolved him from the allegations and the subsequent enquiry found him guilty for negligence. The punishment inflicted for negligence is too heavy because he was a Token Clerk and he received the cheque, passed on to the person who gave him the cheque. He then entered it in ledger book. He passed on to other Clerk in process of encashment. This much is done by the respondent and there is something more that meets the eye in the present case. The explanation furnished by the defaulter respondent in the initial stage has made certain allegations against Clerk Ramzan. The tendency in the cross‑examination by the respondent is that Fateh Muhammad got up from the chair and loudly cried that there is the fraud caught up by him. The presenter of the cheque the possessor of the token ran away. This means that Fateh Muhammad wanted to inform the possessor of the token to make good the escape. In the two enquiries made against the present respondent this fact is not mentioned. The fact of suspicion on Fateh Muhammad is not mentioned. However, we are not concerned with it. The Labour Court has given a clean flat to the respondent and I after going through the enquiries and find that he appears to be innocent and, therefore, I dismiss the appeal. As regards the back benefits he has filed the counter‑plaint and I feel that it is too long to grant back benefits in this case and tile back benefits are, therefore, refused. The case of back benefits is filed after a long lapse of time, it is, therefore, not allowed. M.Y.H. Appeal dismissed.