1. ' MRS, YASMIN ABBASEY, J.--- Facts in brief are that appellant was appointed as Go down Keeper. In against a leave vacancy he was pasted at Habib Bank Limited, Clifton Branch, Karachi in place of one Nasir H. Naqvi, In-charge Officer of Remittance Department. On that leave vacancy he was assigned to perform the following duties.
(a) All jobs under the supervisions of Incharge Remittance.
(b) Payments of DDs. TTS, Receipts, MTs, HMT, FDD and respond related advises, and pension to KMC/KDA/Sind Sec. Etc. And preparation of statements on monthly basis.
(c) Dispatch work and handling of inward and outward dak.
(d) Maintain records and filing related to remittance.
(e) Preparation and responding of intercity clearing.
(f) Any other work assigned by Manager.
2. ' On 2-5-2008 appellant received a suspension letter issued by respondent No,2 on the ground that during his posting in Remittance Department he issued various pay orders for the purpose of subscription of shares of Kot Addu Power Company under his signatures. So also the pay orders in different names were debited from his personal account No,15494-0. Subsequent thereto on 20-5- 2005 a show-cause notice was issued with the same state of allegations as were levelled in the suspension order on the basis of investigation report of Investigation Department dated 23-4- 2005.
3. In reply, the appellant has denied all the allegations. According to appellant, he had signed all the pay orders with the approval and on verbal directions of Branch Manager. In enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer has relieved the appellant from all the charges. As per report, Chief Manager/Manager Operations cannot authorize any person other than the officer, hence Bank's rules have been violated by the senior officials, thus appellant cannot be held responsible for violation of Bank rules and procedure. However, he was charged with the violation of Bank procedure and practice.
4. ' After this enquiry report, second show-cause notice dated 3-8-2005 was issued. On 16-11-2005, appellant was compulsorily retired from service. Departmental appeal/grievance notice was filed by the appellant on 25-11-2006 but the same was rejected on 3-1-2006. Being aggrieved by that rejection of departmental appeal, the appellant approached to Federal Service Tribunal, which was later on withdrawn on 21-4-2006. It was observed by the Federal Service Tribunal that as Habib Bank Limited has been privatized, therefore, it has no jurisdiction. Later on the appellant has filed an appeal before the Sindh Labour Court, which was dismissed on 24-12-2007.
5. ' It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the posting in Remittance Department was on leave vacancy, therefore, whatever he did, was under the verbal instructions of the Bank Manager, which was placed before Enquiry Officer during enquiry proceedings. Referring to statement of Syed Nasir H. Naqvi (Ex-Officer), who has deposed that:- "as Incharge Remittance Mr. Nadeem Ahmed Qureshi, Assistant was working under him. The Branch Manager has authorized him to sign the pay order in order to redress the rush of work and to facilitate "Iranian Consulate" main customer of Pay Orders.
6. ' Therefore, Mr. Nadeem used to sign the pay orders as per past prevailing practice, no objection was ever raised.
7. ' Detailing other facts, this witness Syed Nasir H. Naqvi has further deposed that:-- "Mr. - Nadeem Ahmed Qureshi used to sign pay orders as attorney on behalf of Manager as per directions of the Branch Manager and this fact was in knowledge of the Chief Manager/ Manager Operations."
8. ' It is on the basis of this evidence produced before him, Enquiry Officer was of the view that appellant signed the pay orders as per information/verbal permission of Chief Manager and the same was in notice of Remittance In charge/CD In charge/Manager Operations. He further observed that:--- "The prosecutor in written statement do admitted that Mr. Nadeem Ahmed Qureshi was deployed at Remittance Counter as his leave replacement, therefore, the act of signing the pay orders cannot be termed unauthorized but this was contrary to Bank, rules and procedure irrespective of situation/ circumstances, Chief Manager/Manager Operations cannot authorize any person other than Officer, hence Bank rules have been violated by the Senior officials thus, Mr. Nadeem Ahmed cannot be held responsible for the violation of Bank rules and procedure, Mr. Nadeem Ahmed Qureshi was performing the duties satisfactorily, therefore, the charges mentioned below are not substantiated.
(1) Negligence in performance of duty.
(2) Unauthorisedly signed pay orders.
9. ' However, he was found guilty of violation of Bank procedure and practice.
10. In this whole scenario it is important to note that the main person i.e, the Chief Manager, who allowed the appellant to sign on pay orders neither was produced as a witness by the authorities of respondent No,1 nor was called by the Enquiry Officer as witness, hence under these circumstances, defence taken up by the appellant that whatever he did, he did under the instructions of Chief Manager goes unrebutted and has to be accepted.
11. ' Referring to statement of Muhammad Yousuf, AVP and Chief Manager, Clifton Branch, wherein he had alleged that appellant had singly signed on 430 pay orders for the purpose of shares subscriptions to other than Account Holders/Branch Customers, whereas being Assistant he was not authorized to sign such instrument, and that 9 of pay orders were issued against cheques issued from the personal account of the appellant as share subscription, was not cross-examined by the appellant, which is sufficient to hold that he has admitted the guilt against him. Normally such conduct is deemed to be an admission on his part but the conflicting views of the respondent authorities and their conduct to overlook the negligible act just to save the higher officials from the procedural irregularities committed by them creates a doubt that whenever the act or the appellant, if any, committed was as an independent act or under the directions of his superiors from mere signatures of appellant on the enquiry report of on the statement of prosecution witness no conclusion of his admission of alleged conduct can be drawn.
12. ' Learned counsel for the respondents has also referred para-4 of the grievance petition filed by the appellant before the Sindh Labour Court stating to be an admission on the part of the appellant of signing on the pay orders. The question is not of the signing of the appellant on the pay orders.
13. Admittedly the pay orders were signed by the appellant but the question is whether he independently did the same or, as observed by the Enquiry Officer, it was past practice of the Bank, which was further followed by him under the directions of the Chief Manager of the Bank, who has been kept back in order to hide the truth.
14. Learned counsel for the respondents has further taken a legal plea that the grievance petition filed before the Labour Court was not maintainable as before filing the petition no grievance notice was served by him. To support his arguments, he has referred Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. Through Attorney and others v. M. Iqbal Sipra 2007 PLC, 398 and Khushal Khan v. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. And others 2002 SCM R 943. With due respect to the observations of the apex courts, which in full are not applicable in matter. It is also a settled principle of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in a number of cases that a formal notice required under statutory provision is not necessary and an intimation sent through any mode or brought it into the knowledge of the competent authority is sufficient to fulfil the requirement.
15. ' Standing Order 18 of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
16. Ordinance, 1968 provides that any individual workman who has a grievance in respect of any matter under this Ordinance and undertakes to seek redress thereof, shall bring his grievances to the notice of his employer in writing within 15 days of the occurrence of the cause of such grievances and that was brought by the appellant to the notice of the competent authority by filing an appeal before the President of respondent No,1 on 25-11-2005 within the stipulated time after his compulsory retirement. If it is said that it was an appeal and not a grievance notice, I am afraid that the proposition is not based on correct footings because Standing Order 18 of the Ordinance of 1968 speaks about bringing the grievance to the notice of the employer and not of any particular format through which the employee should bring his grievance to the notice of the employer, hence the petition filed by the appellant before President of Habib Bank was well in time and had served the purpose. Therefore, grievances petition filed before Labour Court was maintainable.
17. Here it is also pertinent to note that by first show-cause notice of 20-5-2005 three allegations were levelled against the appellant i.e,
(1) violation of Bank procedure and practice;
(2) negligence in performance of duty; and
(3) unauthorisedly signing pay orders.
18. ' The last two allegations were washed out by Enquiry Report dated 15-7-2005 but it is surprising to note that in the second show-cause notice of 3-8-2005 in spite of Enquiry Report of 15-7-2005 again the same charges from which he was relinquished, applicant has been asked to explain, which he did on 17-8-2005 in spite of that he was compulsorily retired from service. Whereas the person against whom the main charges of violation of procedure and practice of the Bank rules have been levelled by the Enquiry Officer has not been touched so far, which is a sufficient evidence of the fact that this appellant was singly victimized and was illegally removed from service.
19. ' In view of the foregoing reasons, I hereby allow this appeal of the appellant and direct the respondents to reinstate him in service with all consequential service benefits including pay and allowances.