' This appeal arises from the decision dated 9th January, 1978 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 7, Gujranwala, whereby the grievance petition ,of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be re-instated in service with full back benefits Rs, 318.09 from electricity consumers against bill A. C. No, 189 and issued with his signatures a bogus receipt No, 24466 on the said date and did not deposit the amount in the bank, that being the custodian of WAPDA collection receipt books he intentionally misplaced the relevant receipt book (bearing No, 24466 to onward) to conceal the true facts and defrauded the bank by issuing receipt from the last receipt book and that with his connivance bogus receipts Nos. 24482, 24483 and 24485 for Rs, 47.66, 545.76 and Rs, 51.65, respectively were issued against three electricity bills account No, C- 1901 for Rs, 47.66, No, C-189 for Rs, 545.76 and No, C-I190 for Rs, 51.65 respectively on 31st May, 1976 but did not deposit the cash with the bank, thereby causing loss to it. He was charge-sheeted and finding his reply to the charge-sheet as unsatisfactory, an enquiry was held which culminated in his dismissal.
3. The enquiry was not properly held, inasmuch as before recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses the statements of the respondent and his other co-accused were recorded, which prejudiced the respondent. By recording his statement first, his defence was disclosed which the prosecution had chance to meet in the prosecution evidence. After completing the prosecution evidence, no statement of the respondent was recorded again putting to him the material which had come against him in the enquiry and thus he was not afforded opportunity to explain the material brought against him. His statement was not recorded whether he wanted to produce defence or not. It, therefore, cannot be said that proper opportunity of defence was given: These defects alone were sufficient to vitiate the enquiry and the dismissal order on such an enquiry could not be maintained. The respondent, therefore, was rightly reinstated. In service by the learned lower Court. However, as on account of only technical defects, the respondent was reinstated, this was not a case of allowing back benefits.
4. I, accordingly, partly accept the appeal and modify the impugned decision of the learned lower Court by setting aside the direction for payment of back benefits