' This is the appeal against the order, dated 6th November, 1982 passed by the learned Labour Court No, VII at Sukkur, dismissing the application of the appellant filed under section 25-A, I. R.
0., 1969, for his re-instatement in service with back benefits.
2. The facts leading up to the appeal briefly stated are that the appellant was employed with the respondent's bank at Sarafa Bazar Branch, Jacobabad, as a Cashier. On 13th October, 1981 a customer, namely, Muhammad Sharif went to him to purchase a Demand Draft of Rs, 10,000.
Through an oversight Muhammad Sharif handed over currency notes of Rs, 11,000 to him. The appellant made a notice of the various denominations of the currency notes on the Demand Draft Application Form which amounted to Rs, 11,000 and passed on Demand Drafts of Rs, 10,000 to Muhammad Sharif. He failed to declare excess amount of Rs, 1,000 at the closing of the cash on 13th October, 1981 as well as at the time of opening of it on the morning of the following day, viz., 14th October, 1981. The customer Muhammad Sharif contacted the Manager of the bank on the morning of 14th October, 1981, complaining to him about non payment of the excess amount of Rs, 1,000 to him by the appellant and the Manager on verifying the record got back the excess amount of Rs, 1,000 to Muhammad Sharif from the appellant. The appellant was then served with a show-cause notice for having committed an act of dishonesty in connection with his employer's business by withholding an amount of Rs, 1,000 of the customer of the bank and for making overwriting on the figures of the denominations of the currency notes on the Demand Draft Application Form to carry the figures to Rs, 10,000 instead of Rs, 11,000 in order to facilitate him to misappropriate the amount of Rs, 1,000. He was, accordingly, charged with the misconduct. He made a reply to the show-cause notice refuting the allegations. He, however, remained silent with regard to the charge of making overwritings on the figures of the denominations of the currency notes on the Demand Draft application form. Mr. Aleemuddin Siddiqui, Manager Quaid-i-Azam Road Branch, Jacobabad was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. He conducted the domestic enquiry wherein he recorded the statement of the Manager of the bank, Mr. Muhammad Wajih Farooqi as well as the appellant and submitted his report finding the appellant guilty of the charges. He was served a second show- cause notice and his explanation having been found unsatisfactory he was dismissed from service vide order of dismissal, dated 24th December, 1981. The appellant served a grievance notice on the respondent and his grievance having not been redressed he filed an application under section 25- A, I. R.
0., 1969, before the learned Labour Court as stated above. The learned Labour Court dismissed his grievance application. Aggrieved by the impugned order, dated 6th November, 1982 the appellant has come in this appeal.
' I have perused all the evidence on the record. The appellant has examined himself and the respondents have examined their attorney Syed Busharat Hussain, Officer of the Bank. 1 have also heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Nizamuddin Baloch and Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Awan for the respondents. What I find is that nothing substantial has been alleged against the conduct of the domestic enquiry. The enquiry papers which have been produced on the record would disclose that the Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry in presence of the appellant. He had examined the Managex of the Bank, Muhammad Wajih Farooqi and the appellant himself. The appellant was allowed an opportunity to cross-examine the Manager of the Bank Muhammad Wajih Farooqi who got the excess amount of Rs, 1,000 returned to the customer of the bank, namely, Muhammad Sharif on his complaint on the following day. The appellant was even served with a second show cause notice and his explanation to it having been found unsatisfactory, he was dismissed from service. I find that a fair and independent enquiry was conducted as a result of which the appellant was found guilty of the charges that were levelled against him. Accordingly, as admitted by the learned counsel for the parties, the only issue that would remain for determination is as to whether, in view of the evidence produced in the domestic enquiry as well as before the learned Labour Court, the appellant was rightly held guilty of the charges levelled against him and as to whether the order of his dismissal from services was just and proper. It is an admitted position that Muhammad Sharif due to oversight passed an excess amount of Rs, 1,000 to the appellant. It is admitted on the facts of the case that the appellant passed on a Demand Draft of Rs, 10,000 to the customer, when he had accepted Rs, 11,000 from him. It is also admitted that the appellant at the time of accepting the amount from customer Muhammad Sharif had made the entries in respect of the denominations of the currency notes paid to him, on the Demand Draft application form and that he had made over-writings on the figures of the currency notes of the amount paid which was Rs, 11,000 to make the total figures of Rs, 10,000. The Demand Draft application form has been brought on the record vide Exh. 2/E which would make the position in that respect very clear. The appellant has made an attempt to explain that he could not declare the excess amount of Rs, 1,000 at the time of the closing of the cash on the date of incident, 13th October, 1981 for the reason that his younger brother was missing and he was disturbed on that account. He has explained the overwritings in respect of the figures of denominations of the currency notes on the Demand Draft application form by saying that there was exchange of currency notes to some needy persons on that day and, therefore, he had to make the overwritings. To me, his explanation does not appear satisfactory for the reason that the evidence on the record is clear that his missing brother was found on that very date and that he had even declared the shortage of the cash to the extent of Rs, 3.80 at the time of the closing of the cash on 13th October, 1981 but there is no reason as to why he did not declare the excess amount of the cash. He did not declare the same even on the following day 14th October, 1981 in the morning at the time of the opening of the cash. It would, therefore, appear that he made the overwritings on the figures of the denominations of the currency notes on the Demand Draft application form to tally the total figures of Rs, 10,000 only in order to see that he was facilitated to misappropriate the excess amount of Rs, 1,000. He has admitted the excess amount of Rs, 1,000 with him as well as the overwritings made by him on the figures of the denomination of the currency notes on the Demand Draft application form. Had he no dishonest intention to misappropriate the excess of amount of Rs, 1,000 there was no reason to make overwritings on the figures of the denominations of currency notes on Demand Draft Application Form. Accordingly do not find the explanation offered by the appellant satisfactory This revision is directed against the order, dated 21st May, 1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore in the circumstances of the present case. Even otherwise, it is clear that his explanation in respect of the overwritings on the figures of the denominations of the currency notes is an afterthought for the reason that though he was specifically charged with the allegation in that respect in the show-cause notice he failed to offer any explanation to it in his reply at that time. Mr. Wajih Farooqi, the Manager of the bank has stated before the enquiry officer that the appellant had returned the amount to Muhammad Sharif on his complaint to him and after he bad verified the record of the bank in that respect. This assertion by the Manager of the bank has not been challenged by the appellant in his cross-examination before the enquiry officer. The contention of the appellant, therefore, that he had returned the amount to Muhammad Sharif on the morning of 14th October. 1981 voluntarily has no substance. The evidence and the circumstances on the record, therefore, very clearly prove that the appellant had committed an act of dishonesty in respect of his employer's business by withholding an amount of Rs, 1,000 as well as making overwritings on the figures of the denominations of the currency notes on Demand Draft Application Form in order to facilitate him to misappropriate the amount of Rs, 1,000. He was, therefore, rightly held guilty for misconduct and the order of his dismissal from service appears to me just and proper. The impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court, therefore, does not call for interference.
4. The result is that the appeal is dismissed.