The respondent, who was employed as a cashier in the Habib Bank, Old Campus, University Branch, Hyderabad, was charge-sheeted on 30th September, 1981, in respect of 2 incidents, one on 5th August, 1981, when he was alleged to have received an, amount of Rs. 484 from a Gas consumer, Adam Khan, but failed to credit the said amount in the account of the Gas Company, and the second on 11th August, 1981, when he is alleged to have made a short deposit of Rs. 59.95 in the Gas Charges deposited in the Bank on the said date. A domestic enquiry, based on the above charge- sheet. Was held against the respondent on 27th October, 1981, and on the basis of the report of the enquiry officer, who found both the charges established against the respondent, he was dismissed from service, vide order, dated 1st December, 1981. Before the said dismissal orders were issued, a second show-cause notice was given to the respon--dent to which he submitted his explanation on 14th November, 1981, but this explanation was not found satisfactory by the appellant bank.
2. The respondent challenged the orders of his dismissal before the learned VIth Labour Court which has directed his re-instatement in service with back benefits, by its decision, given on 20th May, 1982. The learned Labour Court has based its decision on 4 grounds, firstly, that the charge-- sheet served upon the respondent was in violation of the provisions of clause (4) of Standing Order 15 in that it was not served within one month of the commission of the acts of misconduct by the respondent or the acts of misconduct coming to the notice of the bank ; secondly, that the charges of misappropriation were not established and the possibility of a bona fide mistake having been made by the respondent could not be excluded ; thirdly, Adam Khan, who was an important witness, was not examined and fourthly, that the respondent was not asked in the domestic enquiry whether he wished to lead evidence in defence.
3. I have heard Mr. Raees M. Mushtaq, the learned counsel for the appellant bank, and Mr. Ali Amjad, Advocate, who appeared for the respondent employee. They have taken me through the evidence recorded before the learned Labour Court as well as the evidence led in the domestic enquiry which was conducted by Choudhry Muzaffar Ali, an officer of the appellant bank.
4. I will first deal with the point of limitation. It appears that the learned Labour Court has not taken notice on this point of the evidence of Ejaz H. Ansari, Manager of the Old Campus Branch, where the respon--dent was employed, and the second officer, Suleman Ghori. In respect of the amount of Rs. 484, Ejaz Ansari has stated that the said amount was received by the respondent on 5th August, 1981 from one Adam Khan in respect of a gas bill and that the respondent had issued -receipt for the said amount and delivered the same to Adam Khan but had failed to deposit the amount of Rs. 484 with the bank. He has further stated that the party (Adam Khan) has approached the bank on 19th September, 1981 and showed the bill duly signed by the cashier and demanded his money, whereupon the respondent was questioned and he admitted having received the amount of Rs. 484 from Adam Khan and returned the amount on 23rd September, 1981. The second officer in the branch, Suleman Ghori. Whose statement was also recorded in the domestic enquiry, has supported the Branch Manager, Ejaz H. Ansari, and has stated that when Adam Khan approached the bank on 19th September, 1981 and complained that an amount of Rs. 484 deposited by him in the bank had not been credited in the accounts of the Indus Gas Company, the respondent accepted that he had received the amount and had not deposited it and accordingly he deposited the said amount on 23rd September, 1981.
5. In respect of the other incident, Manager Ejaz H. Ansari, has stated that on receipt of the letter from the Zonal Office; dated 14th September, 1981 that the Indus Gas Company had complained about shortage of an amount of Rs. 59.95 paid in the bank on 11th August, 1981 the Scroll for 11th August, 1981 was scrutinized and it was found that there was a shortage of Rs. 59.95. He has further stated that on the respondent being questioned about this amount, he admitted the shortage and deposited the amount of Rs. 59.95 on 19th September, 1981. The Second Officer, Suleman Ghori, has also testified that when the letter from the Zonal Office, dated 14th September, 1981 was received, enquiries about the shortage of the amount of Rs. 59 95 was made from the respondent who admitted the shortage and deposited the same.
6. It would thus appear from the evidence of the above 2 witnesses who were examined in the domestic enquiry that the acts of misconduct of the respondent in respect of the amount of Rs.
484 came to the notice of the bank authorities on 19th September, 1981, when the Gas consumer, Adam Khan, complained that the bill of Rs. 484 paid by him had not been credited into the account of the Indus Gas Company and the shortage of Rs. 59.95 by the respondent came to the notice of the bank authorities after 14th September, 1981, when the respondent was questioned on receipt of the letter from the Zonal authorities, dated 14th September, 1981. As such, the charge-sheet was served upon the respondent well within one month of the 2 acts of defalcation coming to the notice of the bank authorities.
7. It was sought to be argued by Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned counsel for the respondent, that the 2 incidents occurred when the respondent was seriously disturbed on account of the sickness of his father and hence the possibility of a genuine mistake cannot be overruled. No doubt, the enquiry officer in his report, dated 20th October, 1981, has stated that the respondent's father was sick and expired on 11th August, 1981, but the possibility of any bona fide mistake in respect of the 2 incidents is entirely ruled out. Now as regards the shortage of Rs. 484 the respondent, in his statement dated 1st October, 1981, has admitted that he had received the said amount but had not credited the same into the bank. According to that statement he had forgotten to credit the said amount. Even if it be accepted that the respondent had forgotten somehow to credit the amount of Rs. 484 into the account of Indus Gas Company, there would be an excess amount of Rs. 484 in the cashier's till at the end of the day which amount should have been deposited by the respondent with the bank as excess amount. It has, however, been admitted by the respondent in his statement before the enquiry officer that he did not deposit or show any excess amount on 5th August, 1981. Similarly as regards the shortage of Rs. 59.95, the contention that the respondent had made a genuine mistake in totalling up the amount in the scroll cannot be accepted for even if any total in the scroll was wrong, there would remain in the cashier's till an amount of Rs. 59.95, but it has been admitted by the respondent in his statement before the enquiry officer that he did not show any excess amount on 11th August, 1981, when the amount of Rs. 59.95-was deposited with him. It is thus clear that the respondent did not act bona fide but had misappropriated on the first occasion an amount of Rs.
484 and on the second occasion an amount of Rs. 59.95.
8. The learned Labour Court has also considered the non-examina--tion of Adam Khan in the domestic enquiry .Or before it as a factor in coming to the conclusion that at least the failure on the part of the respondent to deposit the amount of Rs. 484 was due to bona fide mistake, but the examination of Adam Khan was clearly unnecessary in view of the admission of the respondent, in ,his statement, dated 1st October, 1981 that he had received the amount of Rs. 484 from him but had failed to deposit the said amount with the bank. This amount, was already indicated, was ultimately deposited by the respondent with the bank on 23rd September, 1981, when Adam Khan made a complaint about the non-credit of the amount in the accounts of the Indus Gas Company.
9. The observations of the learned Labour Court that the respondent was not given an opportunity to produce his defence witnesses is based on the allegations made by the respondent in paragraph 5 of his affidavit before the learned Labour Court that he was not given chance to produce defence witnesses though he had made such request. However, no such question was put to the enquiry officer, who was examined before the learned Labour Court . The enquiry officer has stated that he had conduc--ted the enquiry fairly and impartially and had nothing personal' grudge against the respondent. The very fact that the enquiry officer in his enquiry report has pointed out that the father of the respondent was sick and expired on 11th August, 1981 indicates that the enquiry officer wanted to bring all aspects of the case fairly to the notice of the competent bank authorities. Moreover, neither in his replies to the show-cause notices, dated 30th September, 1981 and 10th November, 1981, nor in his grievance notice has the respondent alleged that he was not allowed to lead defence before the enquiry officer. In fact, as already indicated, in his replies to the show-cause notice, dated 30th September, 1981, the respondent has admitted the 2 charges against him and confessed that he had received an amount of Rs. 484 from Adam Khan on 5th August, 1981, which be had not deposited in the bank, and that on 11th August, 1981 he had failed to credit an amount of Rs. 59.95 into the bank in the account of Indus Gas Company which amount he had received from the consumers of the Gas Company.
10. A cashier in a bank is to perform his duties with utmost honesty and defalcations by cashiers and bank officials cannot be glossed over lightly. Such an approach is likely to undermine the confidence of the general public in the banking institutions and would have far-reaching consequences. Bank like Caesar's were must be above all suspicion.
11. For the reasons discussed by me above, I .Am of the view that the 2 charges against the respondent have been duly established, 1 would accordingly set aside the decision of the learned