DECISION This appeal by the National Bank of Pakistan is directed against decision of the learned Sixth Labour Court, Hyderabad, given on 20th October, 1981, upon the grievance petition filed by the respondent Workman challenging his dismissal from service. By the impugned decision the learned Labour Court has held that the orders of dismissal from service of the respondent are invalid and has directed the appellant-Bank to re-instate him in service with full back benefits.
2. The respondent, who was employed as a cashier in the appellant-- Bank, was served with a charge-sheet, dated 17th March, 1980 in respect of the unauthorised drawal of an amount of Rs. 100 from the account of the banks' guard, Ghaffar Khan, and unlawfully retaining the said amount, on or about 13th February, 1978, when he was posted as cashier in the Baghan Branch of the appellant-Bank. The respondent submitted a reply, dated 18th March, 1980, to the charge-sheet but as it was not found satisfactory--- a domestic enquiry was held against the respondent by S. Mukhtar Ali, Officer Grade-I. It may be stated here that it was this Officer who had issued the charge-sheet to the respondent. In his report, the Enquiry Officer has exonerated the respondent of the charge of forging the signature of bank guard Ghaffar Khan on the debit voucher presented to the bank but was of the opinion that the signature on the voucher acknowledging receipt of the amount was of the respondent. It appears that subsequent to the submission by the Enquiry Officer of his report to the competent authority, the admitted signatures of the respon--dent and the bank guard, Ghaffar Khan, together with the two disputed signatures on the debit voucher, were sent to handwriting expert, A. B. Chughtai, and on the basis of his report that the two signatures on the debit voucher do not tally with the admitted signature of Ghaffar Khan, the respondent was dismissed from service vide office order, dated 11th March, 1981.
3. I have heard Mr. Mamoon Kazim the learned counsel for the appellant-Bank, and Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, who appeared for the repondent bank, Mr. Mamoon Kazi did not challenge the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to decide the grievance petition of the respondent in view of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Altaf Ahmad Shaikh v. National Bank of Pakistan decided on 7th March, 1982.
The short point argued by him was that even if the view taken by the learned Labour Court is correct. That before the Enquiry officer there was no tangible evidence establishing the misconduct of the respondent, the report of the handwriting expert clearly indicated that the signatures of Ghaffar Khan on the debit voucher in question had been forged by the respondent.
The learned counsel candidly conceded that the respondent was not given any opportunity of rebutting the report nor wag he confronted with this report and, therefore, dismissal of the respondent on the basis of this report was not justified. He, however submitted that the mere fact that the correct procedure was not adopted by the bank authorities in the instant case does not exonerate the respondent from his illegal action or wash away his guilt. He relied upon the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Islamabad Club v. Punjab Labour Court (PLD 1980 SC 307) in support of his submission that the bank should be given an opportunity of holding a proper enquiry against the respondent and for taking appropriate action against him if his guilt, in such an enquiry, was duly established. In the Islamabad case, the employee was given notice of only one misconduct yet the finding of the Enquiry Officer covered other matters also. It was held that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer on other matters, which were not included in the original charge, must have influenced the administrator's mind in awarding punish--ment to the employee. It was accordingly held that the employee could not be said to have been given reasonable opportunity of defending him--self against the charges forming basis of disciplinary actions against him. The Supreme Court, while agreeing with the view taken by the High Court that the dismissal of the employee was invalid, observed that if the authorities of the Islamabad Club were still anxious to pursue the matter it would clearly be open to them to resume the proceedings by furnishing a copy of the Enquiry Report to the respondent and giving him a reason--able opportunity to show cause against the proposed order of dismissal on the ground found against the respondent by the Enquiry Officer.
4. In the instant case, as admittedly the respondent was not given an opportunity of rebutting the report to the handwriting expert the order of dismissal cannot be sustained. On the other hand in view of the report of the handwriting expert, which was placed before the competent authority, it cannot be said that there is no evidence in support of the charge of misconduct against the respondent. No doubt the learned Labour Court has taken the view that the misconduct with which the respondent was charged has not been established, but it has bared this finding entirely on the report of the Enquiry Officer and had not taken into consideration the report of the handwriting expert, presumably because the report was neither produced before the Enquiry Officer nor the respondent was given on opportunity of rebutting the finding in that report.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that I would agree with the finding of the learned Labour Court that the order of dismissal passed in respect of the respondent is invalid and has, therefore, to be set aside. At the same time I would observe, respectfully following the view taken by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the Islamabad case, that if the bank authorities are still anxious to pursue the case against the respondent they may hold a fresh enquiry in accordance with the law wherein the respondent should be given a fair and reasonable opportunity of rebutting the report of the handwriting expert. Needless to add that a fresh enquiry can validly be held against the respondent only if the respondent was notified the misconduct alleged against him within the period specified in clause (4) of Standing Order 15. The fresh enquiry by the bank, if they chose to hold one, should be commenced not later than two months from the date of this order. The award of back benefits to the respondent would depend upon the result of the enquiry. If no enquiry is held within the said period of two months the respondent would be entitled to full back benefits also,