' The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 26th September, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service.
2. The allegation for which the appellant was dismissed from service was that he received Rs, 16,400 for being deposited in Account No, 2775 but deposited Rs, 14,400 only and misappropriated Rs, 2,000 changing the amount in the pay-in-slip from Rs, 16,400 to 14,400. The case of the appellant is that Rs, 14,400 were delivered to him and as the details given by the depositor was wrong, on the asking of the account holder he corrected the details. The account holder had by mistake in the pay-in-slip entered the amount to be deposited as Rs, 14,400 instead of Rs, 16,400 but in the details of currency notes of 16,400.
3. During the enquiry Ghulam Sarwar, depositor, appeared and supported the prosecution case. He said that he had delivered Rs, 16,400 but in the pay-in-slip had by mistake entered the amount as Rs, 14,400 although in details of currency notes given on the back of it the amount mentioned was Rs, 16,400. He also stated that Rs, 2,000 were afterwards paid to him by Muzaffar Ali on behalf of the appellant. Muzaffar Ali too testified to this effect in his statement. In Exh. R-2 the appellant confessed the detention of Rs, 2,000 and said that he had returned it later on. No enmity with Ghulam Sarwar and Muzaffar Ali was suggested by the appellant. He set up the place that on account of his union activities, he was impleaded in a false case but there appears to be no reason why Muhammad Sarwar should have falsely implicated him. Muzaffar Ali, no doubt, said that the appellant had, while asking him to pay Rs, 2,000 to Muhammad Sarwar, said that he was innocent and that only in order to save his service he was paying Rs, 2,000 but this is in contradiction to what is said in Exh. R-2. By the evidence of disinterested witness namely Muhammad Sarwar, account holder, it stands amply proved that the appellant retained Rs, 2,000 and instead of depositing Rs, 16,400 deposited in the account Rs, 14,400 only. He took advantage of the mistake of Muhammad Sarwar who had in pay-in-slip wrongly entered the amount as Rs, 14,400 although he had delivered Rs, 16,400 and had mentioned the same amount in the details of currency notes on the back of the slip. The appellant changed the details given by the party on the back of the pay-in-slip and this show his dishonest intention. If he had not changed the amount, it could be said that as in pay-in- slip the amount to be deposited was mentioned as Rs, 14,400 he by mistake issued receipt and mentioned in the relevant book the amount as Rs, 14,400. The appellant's plea is that Exh. R-2 was got executed from him by threats but he failed to establish it. When he realised that the fraud and misappropriation had been detected, he in the hope of being forgiven made confession in Exh. R.
2. There is no evidence except the statement of the appellant that any threat was given to him.
4. It has been argued that the competent authority did not exercise his free discretion while prescribing punishment and passed the dismissal order under the order of the Head Office. This is true that the authority had suggested stoppage of one year's increment and the Head Office did not agree to it but this is not sufficient to say that he did not exercise his discretion freely. He was convinced when the Head Office did not agree to his proposal. In banks public money is lying entrusted. If the account holders start feeling that the money is not safe in a particular bank, it would refrain from depositing the amounts and instead would think of transferring the accounts to some other banks. So, in cases of fraud and misappropriation the punishment should not be short of dismissal or termination. When a person has been proved to be dishonest, no-confidence can reposed in him in future. The suggestion of the authority was manifestly ill-considered and the Head Office rightly disagreed. So, in the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the authority while awarding the punishment of dismissal was not free. Learned counsel has cited PLD 1964 SC 829 but the same is distinguishable. The Chief Settlement Commissioner in second revision petition had only endorsed the finding of the Settlement Commissioner without applying his independent mind. The question involved was of the entitlement of the parties to the transfer of the house. Obviously it was incumbent upon the Chief Settlement Commissioner to himself consider the rights of the parties. But in the present case as remarked above, the suggestion of the authority to stop one year's increment in a case of misappropriation was highly ill-considered and the Head Office rightly ordered him to pass the dismissal order. The appellant, therefore, has not been prejudiced. He deserved the dose prescribed for him. The punishing authority realised that the proper punishment in the circumstances of the case was dismissal but for reasons best known to him, he wanted to have soft concern for the appellant and wanted that the Head Office should share the responsibility, with him, so instead of directly awarding the punishment be suggested to the Head Office that one year's increment be stopped.
5. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.