' The appeal captioned above emanates from the decision, dated 27th February, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 3, Lahore at Ferozewala.
2. The appellant was a cashier. On the allegation that he had misappropriated Rs, 1,000 he was charge-sheeted on 27th December 1980, vide Exh. P. A. By the Assistant Vice-President. He sent reply to the charge-sheet late, whereupon another charge-sheet was given for the reason that he had not submitted reply to the first charge-sheet. Second show-cause notice was given and dismissal order was passed by the Senior Vice-President but the charge-sheets were given by the Assistant Vice-President.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the charge-sheets were given by an incompetent authority, enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the allegation contained in the first charge-sheet only, that no copy of the enquiry report was supplied and that the charge of misappropriation of Rs, 1,000 was not established.
4. The plea that the charge-sheets were delivered by an incompetent authority was not taken up in the grievance petition. The respondent, therefore, had no opportunity to meet it by producing evidence. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that a circular was issued in 1978 authorising Assistant Vice-Presidents to issue charge-sheets and if objection had been taken in the petition, the circular referred to above would have been produced in evidence. He has produced photo copy of circular No, P/INF/78/227, dated 29th October 1978 but it has no evidentiary value as it is not an attested copy of the original. Moreover, Manager/Zonal Chief/Area Chief have been authorised to charge sheets officers working in the branches. Assistant Vice-President is not mentioned. Only the Senior Vice-President or the officer authorised by him could legally charge- sheet the appellant. This technical defect goes to the benefit of the appellant. No doubt, the enquiry officer, as stated by him, was appointed to enquire into the allegation contained in the first charge-sheet and the finding of the enquiry officer given on the point that the appellant was guilty, of not replying to the first charge-sheet was a matter extraneous to the allegation of misappropriation, yet 1981 PLC 984 is not attracted, inasmuch as the charge of misappropriation is more heinous to the allegation that the charge-sheet was not replied. Non-submission of the reply to the charge-sheet does not constitute a misconduct. Reply is demanded to give an opportunity to the employee concerned to explain the allegation made against him and if he proposes not to give reply, directly an enquiry officer can be appointed and the employee informed about the date of enquiry. Punishment of dismissal on a charge of misappropriation is not excessive but this kind of punishment for not obeying a reasonable order is not necessary. So, even in the absence of charge No, 3 the appellant could be properly awarded the punishment of dismissal and it cannot be said that if the allegation of failure to reply to the charge sheet had not been considered as misconduct, some; lesser penalty may have been inflicted.
5. There is force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that no copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the appellant. Supply of copy of report is quite separate from the issue whether second show-cause notice be given or not. Service of second show-cause notice may not be necessary in bank cases but non-supply of the copy of the enquiry report is direct violation of the provisions of sub para (5) of para. 258 of the first Wage Commission Award. The words 'the report together with employee's statement shall be laid before the authority' are very significant. If copy of the report is not supplied, the employee is not in a position to know what is report against him and what statement with regard to report he may make. If only the report and the enquiry C file are submitted to the competent authority only one-sided picture will be before the authority. But copy of enquiry report is supplied and reply statement, if any, made by the employee is also submitted to the authority, it would be in a position to know what was the contention of the employee against the enquiry proceedings and the enquiry report. Non-supply of copy of enquiry report before the penalty is imposed, caused great prejudice to the employee and the penalty is not sustainable. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the appellant made confession and actually paid the amount of Rs, 1,000. The so-called confession contained in Exh. R. 13 is the reply to the explanation called from the appellant before he was charge-sheeted.
Any statement made before the charge-sheet does not gather that sanctity, which is attached to statement made after the service of charge-sheet, unless that statement is not retracted from. By service of charge-sheet, the employee is informed that there is a prima facie case against him which, if proved in the enquiry, has to be effectively rebutted by him. So, if after coming to know that the allegation made against him is to be proved against him to award the punishment, he makes the confession, it is of a great value against him. The appellant retracted froth the said statement and in cross-examination stated in the enquiry that the said statement was taken by force.
6. The last point argued by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the charge of misappropriation was not established. The reason given by him is that there are discrepencies regarding the fact whether the report against the appellant was made orally or in writing and whether the Manager was in the bank when the appellant delivered the amount of Rs, 1,000 to the customer. This point is not very much important. Sometimes the informant wants that his name should not be disclosed. If by evidence the charge is proved, such discrepencies are not material.
7. As upshot of the discussion made above, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision, the appellant is directed to be reinstated in service. Since the appellant has succeeded on technical grounds only, he is not entitled to back benefits, except the inclusion in his future pay the annual increments, if any, which would have, but for his dismissal from service, earned.