' This appeal is directed against the decision, dated 30th January, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Punjab Labour Court No, 5, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement in service was dismissed.
2. The facts are that the fraud of. Rs, 77,000 was committed in Zonal Office of the United Bank Limited, Sargodha and Muhammad Jameel and some other officers of the appellant were charge- sheeted. The charge-sheet given to She appellant is Exh. P. 1 and the reply is Exh. P.
2. The charges are as under :-
(a) While posting the bogus cheques No, C-03/216875 for Rs, 37,000 and C-03/216817 for Rs, 40,000 in C. D. Accounts Nos. 4182 and 4436, respectively, you failed to check the prefix numbers of these cheques. Hence, you defaulted in performing your duties properly. Rather your collaboration and connivance is suspected.
(b) Further in C. D. A. C. No, 4436 you issued Customer's position of statement of account to some Mr. Muhammad Zafar and indicated in four own handwriting that it was being issued on the strength of an authority letter which is not available in the branch. As a matter of fact no authority letter was issued by the party. Thus, you disclosed the balance of an account to an unauthorised person which is not allowed under the Bank's rules. The chances of your own involvement in the matter cannot be ruled out.
(c) The cheque No, C-03/216817 for Rs, 40,000 of C. D. A/C No, 4436 was posted by you in the ledger card on 3rd February, 1981. The said cheque was returned unpaid on the same day. You did not reverse the posting of the cheque from the ledger card and got the cheque paid on 4th February, 1981. As per our information you personally got the cheque passed on 4th February, 1981. Thus your involvement in the commission of fraud is apparent.
(d) You claim to have returned a similar cheque for Rs, 33,000 in C. D. A/C No, 3628 for want of funds. Your story is not acceptable as you were not entitled to return the cheque. Only the Manager of the branch or next to him is competent to decide whether the cheques should be returned or paid. Again Bank formalities were not observed while returning the cheque. This matter was also not brought to the knowledge of your superiors immediately."
' There was no direct evidence of the participation of the appellate in the fraud and certain circumstances were put forward to make him liable. He was Machineman and it was his duty to post the cheques received for encashment. A cheque of Rs, 40,000, numbering C-03/216817 CD Account No, 4436 was received by the appellant and he posted it without checking. One officer Mr. Muhammad Jamil had put his signatures on the cheque by way of cancellation but the other officer refused to put the second signatures doubting the signatures of the Account Holder. Since the cheque was not passed, the entry of posting made by the appellant was to be reversed but he did not do it. On the following day, 1. e. On 4th February, 1981, Mr. Munawar Hussain put his signatures as second Bank Officer and thus the cheque was passed. The other cheque was of Rs, 37,000 numbering C-03/216875 in Account No, 4182, but in respect of this cheque the only allegation against the appellant was that he had posted it without checking the prefix numbers.
Since the Enquiry Officer did not find the appellant guilty regarding this cheque therefore the cheque of Rs, 37,000 is concerned is not material. The other circumstance put forward to show that the appellant was involved in the embezzlement of Rs, 40,000, is that be gave information about the balance of CD Account No, 4436 to an unauthorised person namely Mr. Muhammad Zafar showing on the back of the statement the receipt of an authority letter which thereafter was not found anywhere in the Bank. The allegation was that no authority letter was received and he against the Rules gave information about the, balance to an unauthorised person. During the enquiry, Mr. Gulzar Hussain, Manager and Mr. Munawar Hussain Qureshi, Officer were examined as prosecution witnesses against the appellant, Mr. Gulzar Hussain stated that the appellant had on the following day, i. e. 4th February, 1981 sent the same cheque to Munawar Hussain, Officer for second cancellation without telling him that on 3rd February 1981, the second signatures were not put on the cheque for the reason that the signatures of the Account-holder did not tally. Gulzar Hussain, Manager did not say that he had taken any action on the cheque. He also did not say that the appellant had on the following day sent the same cheque in his presence to Munawwar Hussain for second signatures, without telling him that Mr. Shaukat had refused to sign the cheque for the reason that signatures were not tallying. Gulzar Hussain, Manager could not therefore come to know of the fact that the appellant had sent the cheque on the following day to Munawwar Hussain. Only Munawwar Hussain could tell whether the cheque was sent by the appellant or by some other person. Munawwar Hussain was examined and he said that so far he remembered the cheque of Rs, 40,000, of Hameed Brothers was sent to him for second cancellation through .11/..
Muhammad Aslam, Machine Operator. He did not say that Muhammad Aslam did not disclose to him that Mr. Shaukat Hussain had on account of the suspicious refused to sign by way of second cancellation. Moreover, the statement of Munawwar Hussain cannot be used against the appellant because the latter was not afforded the opportunity to cross-examine , the said witness. The appellant by mistake before the learned lower' Court said that he had cross-examined the said witness, but actually there is no cross-examination on record. Munawwar Hussain was very material witness and only his evidence could prove the circumstance that the appellant knowingly sent the cheque to the said officer without disclosing that Mr. Shaukat Hussain had on the previous day refused to put his signatures. Since the same cheque had been placed before the appellant on 4th February, 1981, he had to act upon it and since there is no evidence that it was he who sent the cheque to Munawwar Hussain, it cannot be said that he was participating in the fraud. Since Muhammad Jameel has been dismissed, the possibility cannot be excluded that it was he who had manoeuvred to get the signatures of Munawwar Hussain. The mere fact that the appellant did not reverse the entry on th February ,1981, when the cheque came back to him uncashed was not sufficient to show that he had any hand in the fraud. Even if he had reverted the entry, he had to re- post the cheque. So failing to revise the entry was not a sufficient circumstance to implicate him.
No doubt, it was shown that he had given information about the balance of an unauthorised person but this was not sufficient to show that he had any hand in the embezzlement. If in reality he had been participating in the fraud, he could easily inform privately Muhammad Zafar about the balance without preparing any record of it. No rule has been shown that giving of an information about the balance of an Account. Holder to an unauthorised person is misconduct. The Enquiry Officer has remarked that the signatures on the cheque were in shaky handwriting but in spite of it the appellant did not object to it and thus it appears that he had hand in the fraud. Sufficient to say that it was not the duty of the appellant to tally the signatures on the cheque with the specimen signatures, therefore, he was not responsible. The authority who had to cancel the cheque had to make a comparison and not the appellant.
4. The other allegation against the appellant was that he bad without authority refused cheque No, CD-A/C No, 3628 for want of funds. The position taken by the appellant in this respect was that he had consulted Mr. Meh Rukh, his colleague sitting by his side and then put the matter before the C.
D Incharge and under his advice returned the cheque. The said C. D Incharge was not examined as prosecution witness to say that he had not advised the appellant to return the said cheque.
Moreover, no rule has been shown that the returning of such a cheque amounts to misconduct.
Oral statement of Guizar Hussain that the appellant could not return the cheque is not sufficient.
5. As a result of the discussion made above, I find that the circumstances put forward are not sufficient to implicate the appellant and he was wrongly dismissed. His grievance petition should be accepted. I accordingly accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned order of dismissal, direct his re-instatement. Since the appellant did not reverse the entry on the cheque of Rs, 40,000, in the relevant record, he is not entitled to back benefits.