1989 PLP 469 (PLC)

(c) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition against dismissal for misconduct‑‑Reinstatement‑ Back benefits‑‑Multiple charges‑‑Some of the charges proved and some not proved‑‑Workman was reinstated, but was not entitled to back benefits. Syed Kamal Mufti for Appellants. H.R. Haider for Respondent. Date of hearing: 8th November, 1988. The appeals recorded captioned above emerge from the decision dated 2‑6_19 Y learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5 Sargodha whereby Mr. Riaz Ahmad Shahid (hereinafter called as the respondent) has been directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits. The respondent has in appeal claimed back benefits whereas; Muslim Commercial Bank Limited through' its President, I.I. Chundrigar Road, Karachi, the General Manager, Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, Circular Road Manager Faisalabad and the Reginoal Manager, Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, Sargodha( herein after described as the appellants) have challenged the order of reinstatement. Since from the same order both the appeals arise, both of them are being disposed of together this single judgment. 2 The allegations for which the respondent was dismissed from service are given in the charge-sheet, copy of which is Exh.P-4, According to the enquiry report charges Nos. 2 and 4 only have been proved against the respondent Charges Nos. 1 and 3 were not proved. All the charges were, refuted by the respondent in reply to the charge-sheet. In these circumstances cogent evidence should have been produced to prove the charges. Only one witness Saleem Ahmad Siddiqui deposed about the charges. Muhammad Aslam Chohan stated the facts of the case. Muhammad Aslam deposed about there covert' of certain amounts from the custody of the Manager and from the respondent but since he did not say that the same currency notes were deposited, it cannot said that the amount recovered is the amount misappropriated. He does not say that the recovery was made in his presence. He stated that a confessional statement of the respondent would be produced by the witnesses. But the enquiry no such confessional statement was produced. Only those recoveries could prove charges which were made from the customers who had accounts with the bank and the deposits were made in those accounts. None of the two witnesses gave any account number and did not say that the amounts were withdrawn from those accounts. The accounts holders who may have deposited certain amounts in their accounts which are alleged not to have been brought in the books of the bank were not examined. None of the two witnesses deposed that they identified the signatures of the respondent on the documents whereby the respondent may have received certain amounts not entered in the books of the bank. The Enquiry Officer reported that charges Nos. 2 and 4 only were proved but the enquiry record does not support this finding. Even charges Nos. 2 and 4 do not stand proved. In these circumstances the respondent has been rightly directed to be reinstated in service. Since according to the Enquiry Officer only two charges out of four were proved, observations made in 1981 P L C 981 are attracted. Where not all but some of the charges are proved, order of dismissal cannot be awarded. Although the Enquiry officer found the respondent guilty of only two charges yet the employer dismissed the respondent on all the charges. Para‑ No. 2 of the dismissal letter reads as under:‑ "Since the charges into which enquiry was held have already been proved and the same are acts of gross misconduct, the punishment warranted is that of dismissal." It is not mentioned that the punishment of dismissal is awarded upon, the charges regarding which the Enquiry Officer has returned the verdict of guilty but the' order is that all the charges into which the enquiry was held have already been proved. This shows that the competent Authority did not care to go through the enquiry report. If the dismissing authority had gone into the report of the Enquiry officer, possibility cannot be excluded that he would not have awarded the extreme penalty of dismissal. Since he was under the impression that all the charges were proved, therefore, he dismissed the respondent.

3. Where all the charges are not proved and some of the charges have been proved and the employee has been reinstated, he is not entitled to back benefits.

4. As a result both the appeals fail and are dismissed. A.E./646/Lb.P Appeals dismissed.