1. ' The applicant filed this application under section 25-A of I. R.
2. 0., 1969, whereby he challenged the dismissal order, dated 26th March, 1983, Annexure copy A/11, passed by the respondent Bank. He prayed for reinstatement and back benefits.
3. ' Briefly facts of the case are that the applicant was serving as Branch Manager under the respondent Bank. For certain acts of misconduct be was charge-sheeted on 18th January, 1981/20th January, 1981 copy R/1, to which he submitted his reply copy R/2, which was found unsatisfactory and was followed by an enquiry in which the applicant participated and having been found guilty of the charges he was dismissed from the Bank service. The applicant preferred a departmental appeal against his dismissal which was followed by a grievance notice but having received no response, the applicant has moved this application.
4. ' In reply statement the respondent-Bank questioned the competency of the application, jurisdiction of this Court and reiterated that dismissal of the applicant is quite justified and legal.
5. ' Parties adduced evidence and filed the documents. I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and gone through the written arguments also.
6. ' The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant was performing the duties of clerical nature therefore, he is a workman under the Standing Orders Ordinance 1968. He further contended that mere designation is not the criteria for determining the status of the employee. He cited 1980 PLC 930, 1983 PLC 862 and 1061 in supports of his contention.
7. ' On the other hand Mr. Bashir Awan learned counsel for the respondent-Bank made the submissions that the applicant was performing the duties of Branch Manager at the relevant time.
8. He was drawing more than Rs, 1,500 p. m. And was holder of Inter-Branch Signature Authority and holder of Key of Strong Room of the Bank Branch. He further contended that it was categorically and specifically denied by the respondent-Bank that the applicant was a workman and was ever doing any clerical job, therefore, the burden to prove his assertions was on the applicant but he failed to bring on record any evidence in support of his contention. Recited 1982 PLC 215, 226, 323, 1983 PLC 509 and 1983 PLC 796 and contended that in all these authorities it has repeatedly been held that burden of proof lies upon the applicant to prove that he is a workman. The documents copies Exhs. R/6, R/8, R/9, and R/10 which are letters written by the applicant himself, show that the applicant was working as Branch Manager and performing the supervisory duties at the relevant time.
9. ' Mr. Bashir Awan further invited my attention towards Exh. R/12, which is an order passed on 13th March, 1983 by my learned predecessor on a complainant filed by the applicant abovenamed.
10. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, my learned predecessor held..."complainant was recovery Officer at the relevant time. I do not agree with Mr. Wasiullah that recovery work is purely clerical. Complainant cannot invoke jurisdiction of this Court .....". This order was not challenged anywhere, it has thus assumed the finality and it operates as res judicata for the applicant to agitate his status as a workman. Mr. Awan cited 1983 PLC 1 Lahore High Court, in support of his contention. He further submitted that since the aforesaid order was passed by the predecessor judge it cannot be reviewed by his successor.
11. ' Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi next contended that the charge-sheet dated 18th January, 1981/20th January, 1981, copy R/1 is time-barred and the charge-sheet on which the enquiry was conducted is not the same one, which was served upon the applicant.
12. To this Mr. Bashir Awan pointed out that the point was never taken in the departmental appeal, grievance notice and in the pleadings before this Court, hence it cannot be agitated at the argument stage. Even otherwise, he submitted that the charge-sheet is not time-barred and referred me to second part of opening para. Of the charge-sheet which shows that the detailed report of investigation was received on 6th January, 1981 while the charge-sheet is dated 18th January, 1981/20th January, 1981. With regard to the difference in dates of charge-sheet Mr. Awan clarified that actually the charge-sheet was typed on 18th January, 1981 but it was despatched on 20th January, 1981 as is evident from the rubber stamp affixed thereon. The applicant acknowledged the same and submitted reply thereto, but never raised such objection. The despatch number of the charge-sheet is same as mentioned by the applicant in his reply.
13. ' I have perised the charge-sheet copy R/1 and agree with the contention, of Mr. Awan and hold that the charge-sheet is not time barred.
14. ' On merits Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi contended that the enquiry report was quite baseless, perverse and against the principles of natural justice, equity and conscience, but brought nothing on record to substantiate the allegations. The applicant participated in the enquiry and did not deny the charges of advancing loan. Even in one of his applications copy Exh. R/5, he himself admitted that during his tenure of Managership he allowed agricultural loans and due to his personal efforts he had recovered Rs, 9 lacs out of Rs, 11 lacs. Mr. Awan while advancing arguments submitted that out of the loan advanced by the applicant unauthorisedly, an amount of Rs, 2 lacs is still lying undetected and unrecovered, as is borne out from the application of the applicant himself Exh. R/5.
15. The upshot of the above discussion is that the applicant has failed to make out his case both on legal point as well as op merit. I do not find any reason to interfere with the dismissal order passed by the respondent Bank. Consequently this grievance application filed by the applicant is hereby dismissed.