' The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision, dated 29th February, 1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore, whereby Maqsood Ahmad (hereinafter to be called as the respondent) was directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits. The respondent had in his appeal claimed back benefits, whereas United Bank Limited (hereinafter to be described as the appellant) has challenged the direction of reinstatement of the respondent in service. Since both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The respondent is a token clerk. The allegation for which he was dismissed from service are that in order to misappropriate in collusion with Muhammad Ashraf, Officer Grade-III he issued tokens in relation to the cheques detailed in charges 1 to 3 of the charge-sheet Exh. P. 6/1-3 when the cheques did not bear the signatures of the drawer and were not returned as unpaid, the cheques afterwards were recovered from the drawer of Muhammad Ashraf. The other allegation is that he alongwith the said Muhammad Ashraf was running a parallel bank in the appellant bank. The learned lower Court has found that no charge was established as it was not shown that the amount of cheques was actually embezzled. Regarding the issuance of token without returning the unpaid cheques, the lower Court says that it was not shown that it was the duty of the token clerk to return the cheques. The learned trial Judge has believed the statement of the respondent that he was told that the unpaid cheques had been returned. Here I cannot agree with the learned trial Judge. The respondent should have taken in writing from the concerned employee who had verbally told him that the cheques had been returned. The learned lower Court has held that the respondent did not commit any misconduct and was guilty of negligence only. Pro- bably it was not brought to the notice of the learned lower Court that even negligence amounts to misconduct according to para. 258, sub-para. (2). Any how, on the other grounds the decision of the learned lower Court is correct in view of which the order of reinstatement cannot be interfered with. No second show-cause notice was given supplying copy of the enquiry report as required by sub- para. (5) of para. 253 of the First Wage Commission Award. After the enquiry is completed, the report is to be sent so the competent authority alongwith the statement of the employee concerned. The statement referred to in sub-para. (5) is the second statement of the accused. First statement is mentioned in sub-para. (4) which the accused, makes in reply to the first show-cause notice. The second statement referred to in sub-para. (5) is the statement in relation to the enquiry report. The order asking the accused to make statement with regard to the enquiry report is thus the second show-cause notice. Needless to say that unless the accused is supplied with the copy of the enquiry report, he is not in a position to say anything about it. So, supply of the copy of the enquiry report is necessary according to sub-para. (5) of para.
253. Only from the enquiry report the accused can come to know what evidence has impressed the Enquiry Officer to return the verdict of guilt. He also comes to know how his defen evidence has been met and rejected by the Enquiry Officer. The provisions of second show-cause notice by supplying the copy of the enquiry report are mandatory and where compliance of it has not been made, the accuse stands highly prejudiced. The learned lower Court has thus rightly take serious notice of the failure on the part of the appellant in supplying copy of the enquiry report and giving second show cause notice. I am aware of the presence of some ruling in the field to the effect that second show-cause notice I not necessary but they are based upon Standing Order 15 (4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, the provisions of which are different from sub-para. (5) of para. 253 of the First Wage Commission Award.
3. The other defect is that the respondent had applied for summoning eight witnesses in defence but no order on his application was passed. All the witnesses mentioned therein are said to be the employees of the appel-D lant bank, so they could be bound down to appear before the Enquiry Officer. Proper opportunity to defend, therefore, was not afforded. The defect in itself is sufficient to quash the findings of the Enquiry Officer.
4. The respondent has claimed back benefits also. In the circumstances of the case, they were rightly disallowed to him. Negligence as observed above amounts to misconduct. No doubt absence of second show-cause notice and not allowing the respondent to produce witnesses in defence named in his application Exh. P. 28, was a serious defect but I do not think that in all probabilities the respondent could have shown that he did not act negligently if the above- mentioned defect had not taken place.
5. As a result, both the appeals are dismissed.