1989 PLP 680 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition of Bank employee against dismissal for misconduct‑‑Charge‑sheet served but no reply submitted by accused‑‑Dismissal order passed without inquiry‑‑Such order, held, was not sustainable‑‑Employer praying for permission for holding inquiry‑‑Allegation not involving embezzlement or misappropriation‑‑No unavoidable circumstances shown which prevented employer to hold inquiry before passing impugned order

Labour Appellate Tribunal while accepting grievance petition refused permission for inquiry. (c) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Reinstatement‑‑Back benefits‑‑Dismissal order passed without inquiry‑‑Petitioner deposing that he remained jobless after dismissal

Back benefits however disallowed in order to promote good relations between parties. H.R.Haider for Appellant. Mian Abdul Rashid for Respondents. Date of hearing: 3rd December, 1988. The appeal captioned above emerges from the decision dated 10-10‑1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service has been dismissed.

2. The allegation against the appellant was that he had produced a bogus certificate of matriculation in order to get promotion as cashier and succeeded in doing so. Admittedly no inquiry was held.

3. Learned lower Court has held that since the appellant did not give reply to the charge‑sheet and did not deny the allegation of producing false matriculation certificate, holding of inquiry was not necessary. On the face of it the ground given by the learned lower Court is insufficient. Only in cases where the allegations have been admitted there is no need to hold inquiry but in the present case the appellant did not make any admission. This is true that he did not file any reply to the charge‑sheet denying the allegation but it did not amount to admission on his part. I do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that since no reply to the charge‑sheet was filed denying the allegations, it amounted to admission. It was not a civil suit so that it may be taken that since the facts alleged in the plaint were not specifically denied in the written statement, it amounted to admission. Departmental inquiries are quasi‑criminal in nature and it is necessary to hold inquiry where the charges have not been denied. Even if no reply to the charge‑sheet is given, it amounts to denial of allegation and holding of inquiry is a must. The officer before whom the matriculation certificate is alleged to have been produced by the appellant could be very easily examined by holding an inquiry. The learned counsel for the respondent has prayed that permission to hold inquiry now be given. He has not put forward any cogent reason for being given such a permission. If there were any unavoidable circumstances which prevented the holding of inquiry, in such cases such a prayer may be considered but without any reason this cannot be done. However, in cases of embezzlement and misappropriation of money or articles it may be regarded proper to permit inquiry but there is no such allegation against the appellant.

4. The last prayer of the learned counsel for the respondents is that at least back benefits may not be allowed to the appellant in case he is directed to be reinstated in service. In his statement the appellant deposed that he remained jobless eversince the date of his removal from service and no evidence in rebuttal was produced by the respondents. So, otherwise he is entitled to back benefits but in order to promote good relation between the parties, accepting the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court and the order of dismissal, the appellant is directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits. A.E./614/Lb.P Appeal accepted.