' This appeal is directed against the order, dated 28th September, 1983, passed by the Sind Labour Court No, VII at Sukkur, dismissing the grievance application filed by the appellant under section 25-A, I. R.
0., 1969.
2. Facts leading up to the appeal briefly stated are that the appellant was working as a Cashier with the respondent bank at is Daharki Branch on 30th June, 1982. He is alleged on that date, to have misappropriated the amount of Rs, 20,000 from the bank. It is alleged that he took away Rs, 20,000 from the cash on 30th June, 1982. 1st and 2nd July, 1982 being the holidays, when he returned on 3rd July, 1982 to the office he found the inspection team of the respondents already present there. The inspection team counted the cash and found a shortage of Rs, 20,000. On the enquiry of the inspection team, the appellant admitted his guilt and managed to produce the amount of Rs, 20,000 from his house at Ghotki. The cash of Rs, 20,000 paid by him was deposited by a Credit Voucher, dated 1st July, 1982. He was charge-sheeted vide letter, dated 8th July, 1982. Mr. Ghangro was appointed as an enquiry officer. He held the domestic enquiry and the charge of misappropriation of Rs, 20,000 having been established against the appellant, he was dismissed from service vide dismissal order, dated 11th November, 1982. The appellant preferred departmental appeal which was turned down vide letter dated 20th December, 1982. He served the grievance notice, dated 27th December 1982 on the respondents and his grievance having not been redressed he filed a grievance application under section 25-A, I. R.
0. 1969 before the learned Labour Court. The respondents filed the reply statement. The learned Labour Court recorded the evidence produced by the parties.The appellant examined himself, whereas the respondents examined Ghiasuddin officer of the Bank. The learned Labour Court ultimately dismissed the application. The appellant aggrieved by that order has preferred this appeal.
3. I have perused the entire evidence recorded by. The learned Labour Court and have also heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, Mr. Choudhry Rasheed Ahmad for the appellant and Mr. Sadiq Khan for the respondent Bank. Mr. Choudhry Rashid Ahmed, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised the contentions; firstly, that proper and fair enquiry was not held and consequently the dismissal order of the appellant from service was not just and proper ; secondly, that the enquiry officer was not examined during the proceedings before the Labour Court ; and thirdly, that the photo copies of the enquiry papers as well as other documents produced in the proceedings before the learned Labour Court are not admissible in evidence and should not have been considered by the learned Labour Court.
4. As regards the first contention, there is no dispute that the domestic enquiry was held by the enquiry officer Mr. Ghangro who examined Mr. Rasul Bux Sheikh the Manager of the Bank branch, Lachmandas the IInd officer and Madhoo Lal the Cashier, the appellant admittedly was also working as Cashier in the branch. There is also no dispute that the enquiry officer recorded the statements of all the above-mentioned officers during the course of the enquiry. The appellant himself has admitted in his cross-examination when he was confronted with their statements that they were recorded by the enquiry officer. The above-mentioned statement recorded by the enquiry officer would clearly disclose that the appellant misappropriated the amount of Rs, 20,000 as it was found short on a check up by the inspection team on 3rd July 1982. In fact the appellant himself admitted in his statement recorded before the enquiry officer that he had taken the amount of Rs, 20,000 on 30th June, 1982 as alleged against him for his own personal use. In fact all the tatements of the above-mentioned officers including that of the appellant would also disclose that the appellant made good the loss on 4th July 1982. It is, therefore clear that it was established in the domestic enquiry that the appellant had been found guilty of misappropriation of the above-mentioned amount of Rs, 20,000 and having been detected by the inspection team and actually made good the loss. The conclusion to that effect is supported by the Credit Voucher Exh.
2-S on the record that the amount was actually paid up by the appellant himself. He has also admitted in his cross-examination that it was correctly mentioned in the Credit Voucher Exh. 2-S that the shortage in cash was deposited by him, In fact he has admitted the entire case against him in his cross-examination before the learned Labour Court. He has even admitted that Credit Voucher Exh. 2-S bears the signatures on the reverse side. It is, therefore, established by oral as well as documentary evidence before the enquiry officer as well as in the proceedings before the learned Labour Court that the appellant was found to have misappropriated Rs, 20,000. The only explanation he has offered in support of his defence to the effect that the allegations against him are false, is that he had passed on the amount to the Manager at his request and the Manager subsequently deposited the same through him on arrival of the inspection team. That does not seem to be his case in his earlier statements either before the inspection team or before the enquiry officer. He has even admitted so in his cross-examination in the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, that he had not stated in his statement Exh. 2/0 given by him on 3rd July 1982 before the Inspection Team and also in his statement Exh. 2/AA given by him before the enquiry officer that the amount that was short was deposited by the Manager through him. His earlier version in his statements above-mentioned is clear that he had taken the amount for his own personal use and had managed to produce and pay up the same from his house. His subsequent version, therefore, that he had passed on the amount to the manager who had produced the same through him appears clearly an after-thought and false. It would, therefore, be very clear as is disclosed by the evidence on the record that a fair and proper enquiry was held against the appellant and the charge of misappropriation of Rs, 20,000 was established against him.
5. The contention to the effect that the enquiry was vitiated for the reason that the enquiry officer Mr. Ghangro was not examined in the proceedings before the learned Labour Court would have no force for the simple reason that not only the enquiry papers have been produced in the Court but even the appellant has admitted the same while he was confronted with the statements of the witnesses recorded therein, and has even admitted and that he had signed all those statements. In the circumstances, there could be no objection against the non-examination of the enquiry officer.
Reliance in that regard has been placed on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Syed Obaid Abid v. Messrs General Tyre & Rubber Company (Pak) Ltd. .
6. The contention to the effect that photo copies of the enquiry and other relevant papers produced in the proceedings before the learned Labour Court are inadmissible in evidence and should not have been considered has no substance as well. I find that all the enquiry papers and other relevant B documents of which the photo copies have been produced were admitted by the appellant himself. No objection was raised either by him or on his behalf at the time they were produced and in the circumstances objection in that respect at this belated appellant stage is not at all tenable.
7. Accordingly, I find no force in any of the contention raised on behalf of the appellant. The charge of misconduct as provided in Standing Order 15 (3) (b) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 has been clearly proved against him. Therefore, exception can possibly be taken to the impugned order passed against him, by the learned Labour Court.
8. The result is that the appeal is dismissed. 1983 PLC 37