' JAVED IQBAL, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment dated 15-4-2001 passed by learned Federal Service Tribunal. Lahore, whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that "the appellant wasgot employed in the establishment of the respondents on 15-8-1991 and was charge-sheeted on 21-10-1994 on the allegations of the commission of acts of fraud, forgery and misappropriation of amounting Rs,62,246 on 6-2-1994, amounting Rs, 183,399 dated 17-2-1994, amounting Rs,20,637.40, dated 31-5- 1994 and also dishonestly and fraudulently got encashed 17 C.P.Rs, out of 26 C.P. Rs, to the tune of Rs,1,32,362.66 while working as cashier on 24th February, 1994. Theappellant challenged the charge-sheet before the learned Labour Court which accepted his grievance petition on 26-9- 1995, but the said order of the Labour Court was assailed by the respondents' bank before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and vide judgment dated 17-6-1997 the learned Tribunal setting aside the orders of the learned Labour Court, allowed the respondents to proceed further into the matter in accordance with law. The appellant challenged the order of the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal before the Honourable Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, and the matter remained pending adjudication before the Honourable High Court and ultimately on 1-6-1998 the Honourable High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellant for want of jurisdiction on account of the insertion of section 2-A in the Services Tribunals Act of 1973. After the orders of the Honourable Lahore High Court, the appellant filed an appeal before this Tribunal on 15-6-1998 assailing the charge-sheet dated 24-10-1994, upon which this Tribunal vide order dated 24-7-1998, dismissed the appeal of the appellant in limine being hit by laches. Thereafter, the authorities of the respondent upon finalizing the required inquiry and service of show-cause notice ordered his dismissal from service vide impugned order dated 2-10-1998, against which the appellant preferred his departmental appeal which was also declined by the Appellate Authority through order dated 7-12-19987. The petitioner preferred appeal before learned Service Tribunal assailing the order dated 2-10-1998 whereby he was dismissed from service and order dated 7-12-1998 whereby his departmental appeal was rejected has been dismissed vide judgment impugned, hence this petition.
3. Mr. Muhammad Zaman Qureshi, learned Advocate Supreme Court appeared on behalf of petitioner and contended that the factual and legal aspects of the controversy have not been appreciated in its true perspective which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice as various serious questions agitated before the Service Tribunal were neither dilated upon nor decided.. It is next contended that inquiry report and other relevant record was not perused and scrutinized properly without which it could not have been determined as to whether the allegations levelled against the petitioner were false and concocted. It is urged with vehemence that the petitioner has awarded major penalty on the statement of co-accused which being inadmissible should have been discarded. It is argued that no independent inquiry whatsoever was held as directed by Labour Appellate Tribunal. The learned Advocate Supreme Court also pressed the principle of consistency into service by arguing that the petitioner has been discriminated and co-accused namely Manzoor Ahmad was awarded minor penalty. It is contended emphatically that the alleged admissions made by the petitioner on 4-7-1994, 10-7-1994 and 27-8-1994 could not have been taken intoconsideration as it was neither a part of written statement nor finds any mention in the charge-sheet and the petitioner could not be taken by surprise during argument when his attention was invited towards the said admissions. It is also pointed out that on the basis of belated charge-sheet which is in violation of Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 no order of dismissal could have been passed.
4. Mr. M. Ozair Chughtai, learned Advocate Supreme Court for caveators has strenuously controverted the View-point as canvassed at bar by Mr. Muhammad Zaman Qureshi, learned Advocate Supreme Court, for petitioner and supported the judgment impugned being well-based and free from any illegality. It is also contended that misappropriation was admitted by the petitioner on 4-7-1994, 10-7-1994 and 27-8-1994 before the authorities concerned with the undertaking in writing that embezzled amount would be returned. The genuineness of the undertaking given by him has also been admitted before the Service Tribunal. It is further contended that besides the said admission enquiry was also conducted, proper opportunity of hearing was afforded and accusation proved on the basis of solid and concrete evidence.
5. We have carefully examined the respective contentions as agitated on behalf of parties. We have perused the judgment of learned Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore dated 15-4-2001, order of the learned Member, National Industrial Relations Commission, Lahore dated 19-12-1994, judgment of the Punjab Labourt Court, Multan dated 26-9-1995, judgment of Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore dated 17-6-1997, order of the High Court dated 1-6-1998 and judgment impugned to appreciate the legal and factual aspects of the controversy. There is no denying the fact that the charge-sheet was served on 24-10-1994 for misappropriation of huge amount and encashment of C.P.Rs worth .Whereof runs into lacs by employing deceitful and fraudulent means. It is quite amazing that the said charge-sheet was challenged before the Labour Court which accepted the grievance petition on 26-9-1995 and subsequently the petitioner approached the High Court by way of writ petition assailing the orders of Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal dated 17-6-1997 whereby the Habib Bank Limited (respondent) was allowed to proceed against the petitioner which, however, was dismissed on 1-6-1998. The petitioner had succeeded in playing hide and seek with the Bank for more than four years by exploiting different legal provisions of law and approaching various forums for the redressal of his so-called grievances at a premature stage.
The proper course would have been to contest the charge-sheet by leading some worthy of credence evidence showing that the allegations of misappropriation and embezzlement were false and concocted. We are not persuaded to agree with the learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner that the charge-sheet was belated having no value in view of the provisions as contained in Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 for the reason that limitation of thirty days as prescribed in the said Order shall be reckoned from the date of knowledge. Even otherwise if some embezzlement or misappropriation is detected during the course of proceedings or at some subsequent stage the Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 does not constitute a bar that no charge-sheet could be served merely on the score of delay. It, however, could not be proved that it was a belated charge-sheet and served after thirty days from the date of knowledge. The basic question would be as to when the factum of embezzlement came to the knowledge of the Bank and whether the delay was intentional with mala fides or otherwise? In our opinion there is neither inordinate delay nor, the provisions in the Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 could be invoked in view of the prevalent circumstances of the case. It is worth mentioning that petitioner himself had given undertaking on 4-7-1994, 10-7-1994 and 27-8- 1994 to repay the alleged embezzled amount and charge-sheet was issued on 24-10-1994 which could not be labelled as belated charge-sheet. The provisions as Contained in the Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 could not be interpreted in such a manner that delinquent should be scot-free after thirty days in any case as such interpretation would neither be logical nor reasonable. As mentioned hereinabove the time shall reckon from the date of knowledge and the date of detection of embezzlement and fraud. The minor delay, if any, can be ignored in view of the serious nature of the allegations. In fact the petitioner did his best to prolong and protract the disciplinary proceedings for the reasons best known to him.
6. The principle of consistency as pressed into service by learnedAdvocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner cannot be made applicable as there is a considerable difference between the case of Manzoor Ahmad, Cashier because no undertaking was given by him as has been done by the petitioner. It may not be out of place to mention here that the petitioner was not penalized on the statement of Manzoor Ahmad, Cashier alone but in view of his admissions dated 4-7-1994, 10- 7-1994 and 27-8-1994 with the assurance that misappropriated/ embezzled amount would be paid. The argument of learned Advocate Supreme Court that the petitioner was never confronted with above mentioned admissions seems to be fallacious and devoid of merit as (Ile admission dated 4-7-1994, 10-7-1994 and 27-8-1994 were got exhibited before the Labour Court and same were in the knowledge of petitioner.
' It is worth noting that the genuineness or authenticity of the said admissions were never questioned before the Service Tribunal.
7. On the basis of sheer technicalities the petitioner cannot be absolved from serious charges of misappropriation and embezzlement of heavy amount and encashment of 26 C.P.Rs, twice. In our considered view the charges for misappropriation and embezzlement have been proved to the hilt against the petitioner who made a futile attempt to become millionaire with a short span of time which is not more than a few years when he remained in service by employing deceitful means and committing fraud which makes him disentitled to remain in Bank's service.
8. After having gone through the entire record and judgment impugned we are of the view that all the mandatory formalities as envisaged under the relevant Rules were adhered to and no injustice whatsoever has been done with the petitioner. The conclusion arrived at by learned Federal Service Tribunal is unexceptionable and being well-based hardly warrants any interference. The concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Bank as well as by the learned Service Tribunal cannot be reversed without sufficient justification which is lacking in this case. The petition being meritless is dismissed and .