2006 PLP 376 (PLC)

JUSTICE (RETD.) MIAN GHULAM AHMED (CHAIRMAN).

By a judgment announced on 26-9-1995, the learned Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan, camping at Sahiwal, accepted the grievance petition filed under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, by Muhammad Yousaf Khan, as Assistant of the Habib Bank Limited. Zonal Office, Jinnah Chowk, Sahiwal, the respondents there being the 'Authorities' of the Bank.

2. Muhammad Yousaf was suspended from service on 17-2-1994, as on a surprise inspection he had been found to have indulged in misappropriation of amounts of Rs.1,83,300 and Rs.20,637.40 respectively, on 17-2-1994 and 31-5-1994. He was charge-sheeted on 24-10-1994, the acts of misconduct misappropriation of 'money being almost the same. During preliminary investigation it was revealed that Muhammad Yousaf had dishonestly and fraudulently got encashed 17 C.P. Rs., out of 26 C.P. Rs., in the amount of Rs. 1,32,362,66, by impersonation, while working as cashier, on 24th, 27th and 28th of February, 1994. He was charged for violation of Rules and Regulations of the bank for criminal breach of trust wilfully causing pecuniary loss to the bank, and committing acts of dishonesty, by fraudulently encashing paid C.P.Rs twice. Muhammad Yousaf tiled the grievance petition on 22-11-1994, with a request that the 'Authorities' should refrain from imposing upon him major penalty and the changes against him should be withdrawn, during the period of the suspension. In this familiar style the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court at Multan (Sardar Ghulam Abbas Khan) straight away jumped to the conclusion that the grievance petitioner had been successful in establishing his case. Reference was made to the case-law enunciated in 1984 PLC 1291. It was observed that the Rules of the Habib Bank Limited being not statutory, the employee would be governed by the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. It was maintained that although suspension of an employee could be ordered for purpose of an enquiry, logic or wisdom dictated that an enquiry was to be conducted after service of charge-sheet and not prior to it. Similarly, suspension cannot precede service of charge-sheet. It was so observed by the learned lower Court. Suspension order Exh. P-1 was passed on 5-7-1994, whereas the charge-sheet Exh. P-6 was served on 24-10-1994. In the opinion of the Court below, the order of suspension was not lawful, as maximum period of suspension could be four weeks, whereas, in this ease, it has exceeded the statutory limit. Again, according to the learned lower Court, the charge-sheet was to be served on the accused official within a month of the date of DA knowledge of the misconduct. The charge-sheet has been branded to be barred by the law of Limitation. The whole superstructure based on a charge-sheet of the kind was bound to fall or collapse, according to the learned Labour Court.

3. Having heard the order of suspension and service of the charge-sheet to be legally unsustainable acts, the learned lower Court hasten to hold that the grievance petition had succeeded, and the same was, therefore, accepted, as prayed for. I am afraid, the observation made and the conclusions drawn by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court Multan do not proceed on valid premises. During inspection on 27-6-1994, or at the time of suspension of the employees, on 5-7-1994, the management had become aware of the misconduct on the part of the cashier. He was, therefore, placed under suspension, so that he could not commit further mischief with the record and could not play havoc with the trust reposed in him. It has been urged, and rightly so, by the learned counsel for the Bank, that the requirement of Standing Order 15(4) is that the employee should be made aware of the misconduct, or the proposed action against him, and it was certainly not a mandatory requirement that he should also be charge-sheeted within 30 days of commission of misconduct. Reliance has been placed on 1980 PLC 906; Ahaider Karachi Pipe Mills Links Karachi v. Mirza Ahsan Beg 1981 PLC 849 and 1982 PLC 184, as also on NLR 1978 Labour 177 and 1997 PLC (C.S.)

1. It cannot also be questioned that an employee can be placed under suspension prior to initiation of enquiry against him. The enquiry has of course be preceded by services of a charge-sheet. A Learned counsel for the Bank maintains that it is nowhere provided in the Bank Rules as to what should be the extent of period of suspension and would be the restrictions in regard to the time that should elapse between order of suspension, service of charge-sheet and conduct of enquiry. Again, these are only the technicalities; and ultimate interests of justice should not be frustrated because of any technical flaws of non-compliance with strict requirement of rules. If one in the initial phase of his career takes a bad start and devours public money, he should not be leniently dealt with, since he would prove to be a monster if he is allowed to indulge in his nefarious or ulterior activities unchecked.

4. The learned lower Court has not given any opinion as regards the soundness or otherwise of the gross charges of embezzlement of money levelled against the employee, and has proceeded to allow his grievance petition, by technically holding that the charge-sheet was time-barred and the suspension period had extended beyond the prescribed limit.

5. I would set aside the impugned judgment, by accepting the appeal, preferred by the Bank "Authorities". As the employee has suffered on account of his suspension, he shall be reinstated in service and permitted to work. He will of course face the consequences of the alleged misdeeds on his part, but on proof thereof, to be established by the bank people in the course of regular enquiry, which the learned lower Court has disallowed to proceed, by holding, as already said that the charge-sheet which was going to be the basis of the enquiry was itself time-barred and legally untenable.

6. There shall be no order as to costs, insofar as the present litigation is concerned. H.B.T.130/PLT??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted