' The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 24th April, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 4, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement in service was dismissed.
2. The allegation for which the appellant was dismissed from service was that he had interpolated the amount of his medical bill from Rs, 6 to Rs, 660 and received Rs, 295 fraudulently. He was charge-sheeted and after holding enquiry was dismissed.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the charge-sheet was issued and dismissal order passed by an incompetent authority i,e, Zonal Chief. So far as charge-sheet is concerned there is no allegation in the grievance petition that it was issued by an incompetent authority, so this fact now cannot be raised at the stage of final arguments of the appeal. The dismissal order is dated 7th July, 1981. By that time service rules of 1981 had been enforced.
According to Appendix I clause 14, the Senior Executive Vice-President is competent to dismiss the cashiers. But the dismissal order Exh. P-5 was passed by the Vice-President who is below the rank of Senior Executive Vice-President. If the provisions of Wage Commission Award are applied then the competent authority can dismiss. The competent authority will be that who is the appointing authority or the one empowered by the rules of the respondent bank. In any case the order of dismissal was not passed by the competent authority. In the written statement the position taken by the respondent was that the Vice-President was competent to impose the major penalty but afterwards documents Exhs. R-12 to R14 were produced to show that the Head Office, Karachi decided to dismiss the appellant. If the said letters had been issued on the dates which they carry, then in the written statement it would have been contended that the Head Office, Karachi had decided to dismiss the appellant and not that the Vice-President was himself competent to impose major penalty. Letters Exhs. R-12 to R-14 therefore, do not appear to be genuine documents.
Moreover, Exh. R-12 suggests that the Head Office, Karachi directed that the copies of the dismissal order be sent to it to be delivered to the employee concerned, meaning thereby that the Head Office had to deliver the dismissal letter but factual position is that letter of dismissal Exh. P-5 was delivered by the Vice-President, Zonal Office. It is thus crystal clear that Exhs. R-12 to R-14 are the outcome of afterthought.
4. Grievance notice is not time-barred. Admittedly, the appellant had lodged departmental appeal.
According to Exh. P-8, the result of the appeal was conveyed to the appellant vide letter, dated 9th September, 1981 but no receipt of the said letter was produced. If the letter dated 9th September, 1981 was sent by registered post, then the postal or A/D receipt and if it was delivered by hand, the ordinary receipt, should have been produced, ' It, therefore, was not proved that in reality intimation of rejection of appeal was given to the appellant on 9th September, 1981. For the first time the appellant learnt from Exh. P-3, dated 6th April, 1982 that his appeal had been rejected and from this date the grievance notice Exh. P-9, dated 7th April, 1982 is within time. The reply to the grievance notice Exh. P-10 dated 18th April, 1982 is an acknowledgment of the grievance notice.
5. However, so far as merits of the case are concerned, the allegation stands established. The appellant's case is that the bill was for Rs, 6 only but the bill, dated 4th March, 1980 is for Rs, 660. The appellant admits the withdrawal of the amount sanctioned on the basis of this bill. Rs, 295 were sanctioned and credited to the account of the appellant and he, as admitted by him, withdrew the whole of that amount on the same day on which it was credited to his account. If interpolation had not been made by him from Rs, 6 to Rs, 660 he would not have withdrawn the amount of Rs, 295 and instead had returned the same forthwith saying that his bill was for Rs, 6 only.
6. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the order of dismissal and the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the appellant is directed to be re-instated in service. Since the appellant has succeeded on a technical ground which is that the order of dismissal was passed by an incompetent authority, he is not entitled to back benefits.