1. ' ZIA PERWAZ, J.--- These two appeals are directed against the impugned judgment, dated 28-4- 2006 of the Sindh Labour Court-VII, at Sukkur passed in Grievance Application No,14 of 2005 under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969 allowing the application for reinstatement without back benefits.
2. ' As both the appeals are based on same set of facts and evidence and impugned judgment they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. ' Charge-sheet was issued on 11-11-1997 followed by enquiry proceedings with respect to the allegations that Ghulam Mustafa Channa, respondent in Labour Appeal No,14 of 2006 and appellant in Appeal No,15 of 2006 (hereinafter called as appellant) was an employee of the Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. Working as Assistant at Kandiaro Branch. It appears that during audit the Management acquired knowledge of Irk certain bogus entries. Details of which are as under:-- {{TABLE}} Date of entry A/c No, Correct Date Amount (?)-3-1997 CD 1645 17-3-1997 Credit Rs,40 12-3-1997 CD 1100 15-3-1997 Credit 12,000 9-6-1997 CD 1100 16-6-1997 Credit 3,000 {{TABLE}} ' The appellant passed the cheque from pay book which was not posted in the ledger due to shortage of funds in Account No,414 where payment of a sum of Rs,10,000 was made on 2-1-1997 but was posted in the ledger on 6-1-1997. It was alleged that the respondent effected bogus balancing of ledgers Nos.PLSI0 on 29-7-1997, PLS 14 on 15-9-1997, CD 1 on 7-11-1996 and CD 1 on 21- 11-1996.
4. ' The entries made were not denied by the respondent in his statement before the Enquiry Officer Mr Amir Bux Jamali. The fact that each page of the enquiry report was also signed by him. The enquiry shows that the respondent examined himself while Mr. Allah Warayo Lakho deposed on behalf of the Management in the enquiry proceedings resulting in findings of misconduct. After the enquiry proceedings services of appellant were terminated vide letter dated 6-1-1998.
5. ' Being aggrieved by the termination of service, the appellant filed Grievance Petition No,14 of 2005 before the Labour Court and examined himself by way of filing of affidavit-in-evidence. The respondent-Bank examined Fareed Hussain Shah, General Manager, M.C.B., Hyderabad.
6. ' I have heard the argument of learned counsel and have also perused the material on record.
7. Evidence was brought on record that the Enquiry Officer has left the bank, therefore, as his whereabouts are not in the knowledge of the bank, mere fact of his being alive cannot be made a ground for setting aside the findings based entirely on documents and entries of the bank admitted by the appellant. In case of Mukarram Shah v. Sindh Labour Appellate Court and others 2005 PLC 14 it has been held that Labour Court cannot substitute the findings of Enquiry Officer on his own findings without any tangible material. The contention raised by appellant pertains to the Enquiry officer, who conducted the inquiry, was not examined as a witness before the Labour Court.
8. It appears from the record that management of the respondent had already pointed out that whereabouts of the Enquiry Officer was not known. In the present case, non-examination of the Enquiry Officer before the Labour Court is insignificant, as the appellant was confronted with each page of inquiry proceedings and he had himself admitted in his cross-examination that every page of the inquiry proceedings bears his signatures. It is also admitted by the appellant that he had not made any complaint, in writing, to any authority about the Enquiry Officer. The business of Banking is based entirely upon trust and confidence and financial transactions call for much high degree of care in performance of duties by the employees of Bank. The Honourable Supreme Court in case of Izzat Baig Anwar (supra) has been pleased to observe that the institution of bank is one of trust reposed by the public-at-large and they, in the peculiar nature of the duties of their employees, cannot afford the breach of trust by retaining in service people who are involved in criminal cases and whose absence therefrom, was not only obvious but unavoidable on the part of the official concerned.
9. ' Once a fact of misappropriation is proved against an employee the misconduct alleged against him stands irrespective of the quantum of amount. It is not necessary that only misappropriation of a large amount would attract the prescribed penalty of dismissal while lesser may not attract such penalty. The view taken by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in case of Divisional Collector, KSRTC v. A.T. Mane AIR 2004 SC 4761 may be referred wherein it has been held that when a person is found guilty of misappropriating corporation's fund there is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or faith in such a person and awarding a punishment of dismissal.
10. ' In view of above discussion learned Labour Court while acting contrary to the evidence available on record based on entries made in the relevant registers and ledgers not denied by the respondent granted relief to respondent on the premise that the bank had not suffered any pecuniary loss and the amount was deposited later on. It is to be observed that the bank acts as custodian of the public money and the amount whatsoever is deposited is required to be credited in the accounts of customer without any delay and no sooner the trust reposed by the customer on the bank is shaken the banks would not be in a position to run its business, therefore, merely for the reason that at a subsequent stage the amount was deposited, would not constitute a mitigating circumstance in favour of the respondent to hold that he is entitled for reinstatement into service. It is settled that as soon as misappropriation of public money is established, the delinquent shall be deemed guilty of embezzlement, therefore, no leniency in this behalf can be shown to him. In the instant case as well as respondent has been found misappropriating public money from the bank may be temporarily but as far as charge is concerned it stands established without doubt leaving no option for employer except dismissing him from service to meet the ends of justice as laid down in the cases of Izzat Baig Awan v: Habib Bank Limited 2004 SCM R 98 and Shahid Masood Malik v.
11. Habib Bank Limited and another 2003 T.A. (Service) 180.
12. ' For the foregoing reasons, no ground for interfering with the findings of Enquiry Officer followed by letter of termination, therefore, has been made out. I, therefore, set aside impugned judgment, dated 284-2006 and allow Appeal No,14 of 2006 while Appeal No,15 of 2006 is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.