' The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 4th October, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 8, Bahawalpur, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service was dismissed.
2. The allegation for which the appellant was dismissed was that the cash received by the appellant far being credited in the accounts mentioned in the charge-sheet Exh. P. 1 were misappropriated by him and that he got prepared withdrawal from No, 906417 for Rs, 13,500 but paid Rs, 3,500 only to the account holder, misappropriating Rs, 10,000. Before issuing a charge- sheet, a preliminary enquiry was held, in which the appellant gave a writing that he had been advancing amounts to other persons against the rules expecting better advances from them in favour of the respondent bank. The writing is Exh. R-9. This document stands duly proved by the statements of Muhammad Anees and Muhammad Naeem (R.Ws) examined before the learned lower Court. Regarding the misappropriation of Rs, 10,000 he took up the plea in answer to the charge-sheet that this amount out of Rs, 13,500 was delivered to Abdul Mannan on the asking of Allah Ditta, account-holder, and he paid the remaining amount of Rs, 3,500 to Allah Ditta. This is contradictory to what he said in Exh. R.
9.
3. During enquiry, statements of the witnesses were not recorded in the conventional manner. The witnesses stated jointly that their evidence was the same as the reports made by them on 3rd August, 1980 to the Regional Chief. The said reports in writing were read out and the appellant was enquired if he wanted to cross-examine the said witnesses but he refused. The appellant instead of giving any fresh statement said that his reply, dated 4th September, 1980 to the letter of charges be deemed to be his statement. The enquiry officer was examined before the learned lower Court but the appellant did not challenge the proceedings by cross-examining him in this respect. The complaints made by the accountholders are on the file. The account-holders, no doubt, did not own them but makes no difference. Since the cash received by the appellant to be deposited in the accounts of the account-holders was not credited, obviously it was misappropriated. The plea that the amount was advanced to Zamindars was not established, inasmuch as it was not shown to have been debited to their accounts. The appellant, as stated by him, deposited the embezzled.
Amount afterwards. This further proves the misappropriation. The plea that the amount of Rs, 10,000 drawn from the account of Allah Ditta, account-holder, was paid to Abdul Mannan on the former's asking, was not established as Abdul Mannan was not examined in defence during the enquiry or before the learned lower Court. Allah Ditta rather stated in his complaint Exh. R. 8 that Rs, 10,000 were not drawn by him and requested that the said amount be recredited to his account. In reply the appellant said that he was filing the affidavits of Allah Ditta and Abdul Mannan but they are not either on the enquiry file or on the learned lower Court's file. Allah Ditta tried to support the appellant but as his statement stands contradicted by the admission of the appellant made in Exh.
R. 9, his evidence too is false. No doubt, the appellant examined Abdul Rahim, Muhammad Siddiqu and Ghulam Muhammad, account-holders and they made statements that they had given the amounts on loan to the appellant but their evidence too being contradictory to the admission made by the appellant during preliminary enquiry in Exh. R. 9 and in answer to the charge-sheet, the depositions are palpably false and afterthought. The appellant said11 before the learned lower Court that he had advanced the cash received from Allah Ditta, Muhammad Siddiq and Ghulam Muhammad to such account-holders in whose accounts, so much amounts were not in credit. So how the advances made to such account-holders could be for the betterment of the bank ? His plea taken before the learned lower Court that on blank paper his signatures were obtained was not established. Even otherwise, this plea is false as it was not taken up in reply to the charge- sheet.
4. Admittedly, at the time of dismissal, the appellant was not a Manager and had been transferred to the Zonal Office. The appellant] stated that while he was Manager, there was no clerk and he himself used to maintain ledgers and other registers. This evidence was not rebutted as none of the witnesses examined by the respondent said that there were clerks under the appellant or that he was not doing clerical work. So he was a workman at the time of dismissal as well as when was incharge of the branch.
5. As a result of what has been said above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss the same.