DECISION The respondent, who was appointed as a typist in the appellant establishment with effect from 1st March, 1978, was given the assignment of petty cashier with effect from 1st February, 1980. It appears that on 4th March, 1981 the Accountant in the appellant establishment, Ali Hyder, checked the petty cash with the . Respondent and detected a shortage of Rs. 114 42. Again on 5th March, 1981, he checked the petty cash with the respondent and detected an excess amount of Rs. 884.59.
On 8th March, 1981, Ali Hyder, once more checked the petty cash with the respondent and detected a shortage of Rs. 108.99. On the same day, it is alleged that the respondent refused to disburse wages to the workers though directed to do so by the Accountant, Ali Hyder, more than once. On the same day, in the afternoon, the respondent refused to carry out any of the duties of petty cashier and surrendered the cash. In respect' of all these matters, a show-cause notice was served upon the respondent on 22nd March, 1981. The respondent submitted his explana--tion, dated 29th March, 1981, to the show-cause notice served upon him, but as the same .Was not found satisfactory, the Management decided to hold a domestic enquiry against him and Mr. Athar Maqan of the Stores Department was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The domestic enquiry was held from 15th April to 26th May, 1981 and the appellant duly participated in the enquiry proceedings throughout and has signed each page of the enquiry proceedings. 1n the enquiry proceedings, Accountant Ali Hyder and Controller Mukhtar Shafiq were examined in support of the allegations against the respondent while the respondent examined himself and Accounts Clerk, Mukhtar, in his defence. It appears that photostat copies of the entire proceedings were furnished to the respondent on 21st May, 1981. The Enquiry Officer, in his detailed report, dated 10th June, 1981, held all the charges against the respondent duly establish--ed. A second show-cause notice, dated 15th June, 1981, was, accordingly, served upon the respondent with which a copy of the Enquiry Officer---s report was enclosed. Subsequently, by order, dated 23rd June, 1981, the respondent was dismissed from service.
2. The respondent challenged the orders of his dismissal from service through a grievance petition filed before the learned Labour Court . The appellant-Company resisted the grievance petition on the ground that the misconduct of the respondent had been duly established in a fair and impartial enquiry in which full opportunity of defence was given to the respondent. In the proceedings before the learned Labour Court the respondent examined himself, while the appellant-Company examined their Accountant, Ali Hyder Khan, Manager Administration Ashhad Hasan, and the Enquiry Officer, Athar Manan. The last witness produced before the learned Labour Court the record -of the domestic enquiry conducted by him. The learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that though on 4th March, 1981 there was a shortage of Its. 114.42 in the petty cash entrusted to and maintained by the respondent, a further shortage of Rs. 108.99 in the petty cash on 8th January, 1981 and an excess of Rs. .884.59 in the petty cash on 5th March, 1981, since the respondent was not recruited for the work of petty cash and further as the amount of shortage was compensated by the excess found, there was no justification for taking disciplinary action against the respondent. The learned Labour Court , accordingly, has directed the re-instatement of the respondent with full back benefits. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant-Company has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.
3. 1 have beard Mr. Mohammad Humayun, who appeared for the appellant-Company. The respondent, though duly served, has remained absent. On the last hearing, which was on 10th February, 1983, Mr. Fayyaz Mohammad Khan Azad appeared for the respondent and submitted his authority for representing the respondent. As -Mr. Humayun contended that the respondent had left the country and was working in Saudi Arabia and, thus, was no longer interested in the appointment with the appellant-Company, Mr. Azad was required to clarify this position. He admitted that the respondent had gone to Saudi Arabia for the purpose of seeking a job there and requested for ,time to produce the respondent. Accordingly, on his request the matter was adjourned to today. However, neither the respondent nor Mr. F. M. Azad put in an appearance and; accordingly, I have had the opportunity of hearing arguments of Mr. Mohammad Humayub only.
4. As already indicated, the learned Labour Court itself was satisfied that the petty cash in the charge of the respondent was found to be short by Rs. 114.42 on 4th March, 1981 and was further found to be short . By Rs. 108.99 on 8th March, 1981- while on 5th March, 1981 an excess amount of Rs. 884.59 was detected. On this point, in the domestic enquiry there was not only the evidence of Accountant Ali Hyder, but also the admis--sions of the respondent himself. The case of the respondent, however, is that as he was not recruited for the post of petty cashier and does not have knowledge of accountancy, therefore, he did not know , properly the work-of-the petty cashier. -It may, however, b8 pointed. Out chat the respondent himself, in his cross-examination before the learned Labour Court , has admitted that he was recruited ' in the Accounts Section. Furthermore, admittedly, he had, been working as a .Petty cashier in the appellant establishment since February, 1980. Thus, be had experience of more than a year, as petty cashier when the shortage and excess were detected.
Moreover, though ,tae respondent claimed that be had complained to. His immediate superior and to the Controller, Mukhtar Shah, against the assignment of petty cash being given to him, he has admitted that no written complaint in this behalf was made by him to anybody and further though the Controller, Mukhtar Shafiq was examined before the Enquiry Officer no question was suggested to' him by the respondent that the work of petty cash was assigned to him against his wishes and he complained about this work being assigned to him. No such question was also put to Accountant Ali Hyder who was .The immediate boss of the respondent. On the contrary the respondent, even in his grievance notice, has claimed that he was performing the work of petty cashier satisfactorily. In his evidence in the domestic enquiry his only grievance in connection with the assignment of the petty cash was that though he was promised a raise in salary from Rs. 350 to Rs. 400 p. m. This promise was not fulfilled, In view of all these circumstances, I am unable to accept the plea of the respondent that either the assignment of the work of petty cashier was given to the respondent against his wishes or that he had complained about this work having been assigned to him. Having accepted the assignment without protest and having worked on the assignment for- more than a year, the respondent cannot be heard to say and cannot be exonerated for the unauthorised shortages and excess of cash in his charge on the ground that it was not his job to deal with petty cash or that he was not recruited for this job.
5. The mere fact that the excess of Rs. 884.59 detected in the cash, in the charge of the respondent on 5th March, 1981 exceeded the short ages of cash with the respondent detected on 4th March, 1981, also does not exonerate the respondent for the excess or the shortages detected A's Incharge of the cash it was the duty of the respondent to account for any shortages or excesses, which he has failed to do. As already indicated, the respondent himself, in his statement before the Enquiry Officer, has admitted the two shortages as well as the excess. He has tried to explain the excess of Rs. 884.59 by asserting before the Enquiry Officer that Mr. Aqeel had deposited an amount of rupees one thousand with him but apart from the fact that the excess amount was not rupees one thousand but Rs. 884.59, no evidence was led by the respondent to show that Mr. Aqeel had in fact deposited an amount of rupees one thousand with him. According to the statement of the respondent before the Enquiry Officer Accounts Clerk, Mukhtar, was present -when the amount of ,Tepees one thousand is stated to have been deposited with the appellant but Mukhtar, who was examined before the Enquiry Officer, has not supported the claim of the respondent that Mr. Aqeel had deposited rupees one thousand with him.
6. Apart from the two instances of shortages and one instance of excess of money found with the respondent, there was evidence before the Enquiry Officer that on 8th March, 1981 the respondent had not only refused to disburse the wages to the workers but after the lunch interval had refused to perform any work of the petty cashier and had surrendered the cash in spite of directions of the Accountant to disburse wages to the workers.
7. For the reasons discussed by me above, 1 am satisfied that the misconduct of the respondent was duly established in. a fair and impartial enquiry in-which full opportunity for defence was given to the respondent. The enquiry proceedings were conducted over a period of one moot!, and ten days and cover as many as 36 closely written pages. I would, accord--ingly set aside the impugn decision of the learned Labour Court and would allow the appeal. .The amount of back wages deposited by the appellant-Company is ordered to be refunded to the company.