' Nazim Ali was employed as a permanent Typist in the Zonal Office of the United Bank Limited, Lahore. He was dismissed from service on the complaint of his relative Sh. Bashir Ahmad by a verbal order on 1st November, 1976. He had been making representations and the appeals to the Bank Authorities but he was not granted any relief. He was dismissed without any proper show- cause notice, charge-sheet or inquiry and the inquiry held against him was not in accordance with law. He approached the Minister of State Mr. Jahangir Ali Chaudhry who also recommended his case for reinstatement. The complainant compromised with him and withdrew -his complaint but the respondent did not reinstate him and he served the respondent with a notice, dated 8th August, 1977. Nazim Ali, on the abovementioned allegations, has filed an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and has assailed the order of his dismissal. It has been prayed to be reinstated with back benefits.
2. He also made an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act that he was dismissed from service verbally on 1st November, 1976 and he had been making representations and appeals to the respondent which were rejected about a week ago. He has prayed that the delay if any be condoned.
3. The respondent filed reply and in preliminary objections, it was alleged that the petitioner did not serve any grievance notice within time to the respondent and that the petition was time-barred.
4. On merits, it was alleged that there were allegations of misconduct against the petitioner ; he was issued show-cause notice ; his explanation was called which was found to be unsatisfactory and inquiry was ordered ; the inquiry officer found him guilty and the petitioner also admitted his guilt so he was dismissed from service in accordance with law. It was alleged that the petitioner was informed of his dismissal on 17th November, 1976 in writing. It was alleged that the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself and he admitted the charge levelled against him. It was prayed that the petition be dismissed.
5. Reply to application of condonation of delay was also made and it was resisted. It was alleged that the petitioner was dismissed from service on 1st November, 1976 and he was also informed on 17th November, 1976 that his appeal had been rejected. It was alleged that the application was frivolous and vexatious.
6. The petitioner produced Bashir Ahmad who was the complainant against him. Bashir Ahmad stated that he had friendly relations with petitioner ; about six years ago, he went to the petitioner in the bank and gave him Rs, 5,000 to be deposited in his (witness) account ; it was a new account; he (witness) had indifferent health and said to the petitioner that in case of need he would withdraw the money ; after six months he asked the petitioner to return him Rs, 5,000 but the petitioner told him that he had spent that money and wanted some time to return it ; he made complaint Exh. R-1 to the bank authorities ; ten days after his complaint, the petitioner returned him Rs, 5,000 and he withdrew that complaint in writing copy of which was Exh. P-1.
7. Nazim Ali petitioner appeared as P. W. 2 and stated that he joined the service of the respondent in January, 1974 ; Sh. Bashir Ahmad his relative made a false complaint against him which resulted in his dismissal ; Sh. Bashir Ahmad gave statement in writing in his favour ; Sh. Bashir Ahmad stated in Court that his complaint was false and gave in writing which was Exh. P-1 ; the dispute between him and Sh. Bashir Ahmad was of private nature and not connected with his official duties ; he was dismissed on 1st November, 1976 ; he was charge-sheeted vide Exh. P-2 and he filed reply Exh. P. 3 ; inquiry was held ; he applied vide Exh. P-4 for supply of copy of the complaint which was not supplied ; he was given notice of inquiry Exh. P-5 ; he made application for transfer of the inquiry Exh. P-6 but it was not transferred ; he requested the inquiry officer to summon the defence witnesses vide Exh. P-7 but no witness was summoned ; he was given second show-cause notice ; he filed appeal Exh. P-8 ; copy of postal receipt was Exh. P-9 ; he filed another appeal Exh. P-10 to the Senior Vice-President and copy of the postal receipt was Exh. P-11 then he filed appeal to the President of the Bank, copy of which was Exh. P1-2 and copy of the postal receipt was Exh. P-13 ; he filed appeal to the Chairman the copy of which was Exh. P-14 and copy of postal receipt was Exh. P- 15 ; he issued reminder to the President of the Bank Exh. P-16 but he was not given reply ; he was verbally told that he should wait and what duty would be given to him. (Documents Exh. P-6 to Exh.
P. 16 were objected to as inadmissible but during arguments nothing was addressed. These documents are applications and appeals made by the petitioner and are admissible). He further stated that he gave grievance notice Exh. P-17 through registered post. He stated that he was not given proper opportunity to defend himself and to produce his defence witnesses. He also stated that he was not given proper opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. In cross-examination, he stated that he issued grievance notice on 20th January, 1977 and gave reply Exh. R-2 to the show- cause notice Exh. R-2. He stated that he had been operating the account of Muhammad Bashir and had been signing on his behalf, He disowned the signatures on the inquiry proceedings and stated that he could not differentiate the signatures on Exh. R-2 and on inquiry proceedings. He stated that he was not given inquiry report alongwith the second show-cause notice Exh. R-3.
8. Sh. Lqbal Hussain, Officer of the respondent appeared as R-1 and stated that Nazim Ali made application for inspection of the record Exh. R-4 and he was allowed inspection under his supervision.
9. Mr. Ghulam Yasin Ashai, General Manager, appeared as RW-2 who stated that he held inquiry against the petitioner. He produced the inquiry proceeding Exh. R-5 and stated that he afforded opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses and to produce his defence witnesses and the petitioner stated that he would make his statement only. He stated that the proceedings were signed by the petitioner and his (witness) report was Exh. R-6. In cross-examination, he has stated that only the prosecuting officer appeared before him but no witness appeared against the petitioner because he (petitioner) had confessed his guilt. He stated that he recorded the statement of the petitioner but he did not produce any witness.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Firstly I take the limitation point. The petitioner was dismissed from service verbally on 1st November, 1976 and intimation was given to him in writing on 17th November, 1976. He issued grievance notice Exh. P.
17. In cross-examination, he stated that he issued grievance notice on 20th January, 1977 but Exh. P- 17 shows that he issued it on 8th August, 1977. The petition was filed on 11th May, 1978 so the grievance notice and the grievance petition are both time-barred. The petitioner has applied for condonation of delay on the ground that he had been making appeals to the bank authorities and his last appeal is Exh. P-16, dated 21st April, 1978. The petition was filed within one month after this appeal. The petitioner started filing appeals from 26th December, 1976 till 21st April, 1978. The complainant had compromised with him and had withdrawn his complaint. The petitioner under the impression that in such circumstances, he would be granted relief had been making appeals to the higher officers one after the other right from 26th December, 1976 to 21st April, 1978. He had been pursuing the matter for relief with the authorities so it is proper to condone the delay especially when there is no evidence in rebuttal. I, therefore, accept the application for condonation of delay and condone the delay in issuing the grievance notice and filing the grievance petition.
11. Now it is to be seen if the petitioner had (been granted properopportunity to defend himself according to rule 258(5) of the Wage Commission Award 1974-75. The admitted facts are that Nazim Ali was reproached by one Sh. Bashir Ahmad to deposit Rs, 5,000 in a bank. That money was deposited in the United Bank Limited, Shahrah-e-Quaid-e-Azam Branch in the name of Muhammad Bashir/Sh. Bashir Ahmad and the petitioner had been operating those accounts passing for Muhammad Bashir/ Sh. Bashir Ahmad. The petitioner has admitted these facts from the very beginning which manifests his truthfulness and he contended that he did so in good faith under the authority given to him by Muhammad Bashir/ Sh. Bashir Ahmad. Sh. Bashir Ahmad has not been examined in the inquiry and the petitioner wanted to examine six witnesses mentioned in application Exh. P-7 but they were not examined. It is contended by the respondent that the petitioner did not want to examine them and made his statement only but there is no statement of the petitioner that he did not want to pursue the application which was dated 14th September, 1976 nor statement of the petitioner was recorded in inquiry that he closed his evidence.
12. Inquiry concluded on 12th October, 1976 and application for summoning the witnesses was made on 14th September, 1976 so either the petitioner should have withdrawn this application or statement of the petitioner should have been recorded that he did not want to pursue this application and as the inquiry file stands, the contention of the petitioner finds substantial support that he has not been granted proper opportunity to defend himself by producing his defence witnesses.
13. The other party has contended that the fact that the petitioner did not produce any defence evidence has not prejudiced him because he has admitted his guilt.
' I have considered this contention. The petitioner has admitted the facts as mentioned above, regarding his operating of accounts but he stated that he did so in good faith and with the authority of Sh. Bashir Ahmad and if he had given opportunity to prove his this contention then it may be that the punishing authority might not have taken such a serious view of imposing maximum penalty of dismissal to the employee who gained nothing in this transaction and the bank suffered no loss and the petitioner did so at the instance of his relative who changed from time to time. At one time he complained against him and then he settled with him and withdrew the complaint. In my view, the non-production of the defence evidence has prejudiced the case of the petitioner so far as his punishment is concerned. He should have been given proper chance to prove his contention that he did all that in good faith with the authority of Sh. Bashir Ahmad and as he has not been granted that opportunity, so in my view, the inquiry held against him is not so fair to make it a base for passing the dismissal order. I, therefore, set aside the dismissal order and order him to be reinstated in service.
14. The petitioner has been reinstated for defective inquiry and he admitted his negligence which resulted in his inquiry and all these proceedings so in my view, he is not entitled to back benefits.