' The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision, dated 21-3-1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,2, Lahore, whereby Mian Muhammad Ashraf (hereinafter to be called as the respondent) was directed to be re-instated in service without back benefits. He has in his appeal claimed back benefits, whereas Habib Bank Limited (hereinafter to be described as the appellant) has challenged the direction of re-instatement. Both the appeals arise from the same decision, so they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The respondent is a cashier. He was charge-sheeted for absence and for putting up false bill for X-rays charges amounting to Rs,100. On two grounds the learned lower Court accepted the grievance petition of the respondent--one is that the Assistant Vice-President was not competent to issue charge-sheet and the other is that no opportunity of defence was afforded to the respondent. According to the respondent, his appointing authority was the Circle Executive and his appointment was approved by him, so only he could charge-sheet him. The charge-sheet Exh. P.2 is by the Assistant Vice-President, whereas according to Efficiency and Discipline Rules appearing on page 64 item No, 14, upto category II charge-sheet can be given by heads of Circle Offices and Heads of Zones. Charge-sheet Exh. P.2 is on the letter-pad of Area Office and this was issued by neither Circle Office nor Zonal Office. The learned lower Court, therefore, has rightly held that the charge-sheet was issued by an incompetent authority.
3. It has been argued that since the date of enquiry was adjourned on the request of the respondent, opportunity was given to him to produce defence. The order of adjournment reads "prosecution case is over. On the request of the respondent further proceedings on next date".
Further proceedings after the close of the prosecution evidence is defence. So, opportunity was given but was not availed by the respondent. The learned lower Court has wrongly held that opportunity was not given.
4. However, by the evidence, misconduct of giving false medical bill was not established. The person, who was sent to get verification from the clinic, which is alleged to have issued the bill, was not examined at the enquiry to state that no clinic by the name as mentioned in the bill was existing on the given address. It is thus not proved that the bill was bogus and that the respondent did not get him X-rayed. So, the order of re-instatement is correct although on different grounds.
5. The respondent did not say that he remained unemployed during the period of his dismissal. So, both the appeals are without force and are hereby dismissed.