' The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 16th January, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service.
2. The appellant was a clerk in the respondent's establishment. He was dismissed on the charge of forging the signature of Malik Muhammad Akram. Senior Office Assistant, Traffic Department on petrol chits for obtaining petrol for Company's tractor, lift truck and fire-pump but no petrol was used. The chits are detailed in the charge-sheet Exb. R.
1. To prove that the appellant forged the signatures on the petrol chits, the services of Mr. Zaka A.
Malik, handwriting expert, were hired by the respondent, who was examined during the enquiry. Mr. R.A. Butt, Purchase Officer, was examined and he said that as the chits remained in the custody of the appellant, therefore, no one else but he had forged his signatures. This is evident that there is no direct evidence that the appellant was seen signing the disputed chits. The disputed chits were obtained by Mr. R. A. Butt from the Accounts Department and not from the custody of the appellant.
There is no evidence that either the chits were delivered to the Accounts Department by the appellant or that he had obtained petrol from the petrol pump delivering the chits. So in the absence of such an evidence and the evidence that the appellant was actually seen forging the signatures, the possibility cannot be excluded that some one else may have forged the signatures at any stage, if expert's evidence is found not correct. So far as the fact that the disputed chits are in the handwriting of the appellant, is concerned there is too no direct evidence that-the appellant was seen filling in the chits. Malik Muhammad Akram, no doubt, has said that they are in the handwriting of the appellant but he has not given any reason to identify his handwriting. He has not said that he had been seeing the appellant writing any writings and thus was familiar with his handwriting. In the absence of the reasons to identify the handwriting, the evidence of Malik Muhammad Akram does not carry any evidentiary value.
3. So far as the report and evidence of Mr. Zaka A. Malik, handwriting expert, is concerned, it is not worth the proper. Neither in his report nor in his statement he has pointed out and described the points of similarity. In the photo copy of the disputed and specimen signatures he has put arrows with red ink but has not described what are they and what is the similarity. The usual characteristics that are examined to find out the similarities or dissimilarities are for example, pen- lifts, pen-pressure, movements of pen, starts, ends. Without examining and finding out these characteristics any layman can compare and give opinion. Since Mr. Zaka A. Malik has not described and pointed out any similarities of any of the salient characteristics, his report cannot be said to be a report of the handwriting expert and does not carry that weight as a handwriting expert's finding has.
4. I try to explain dissimilarities by comparing the disputed signatures with the specimen signatures of the appellant. Since actionable forgery is always of the signatures, so I want to deal with the signatures and not the body of the chits. Disputed signatures compared by the expert are Exhs. P. 5 and P.
11. The comparable statement is on the file of the respondent company. The proceedings of the enquiry are not on the learned lower Court's file, so I have obtained the original file which will be returned after the announcement of the judgment. The very start is dissimilar. I have marked the points with pencil in alphabets. Now in the disputed signatures pen starts from 'a' situated in the middle of line 'de', whereas in the specimen signatures of the appellant pen starts at point 'a' which is the top and not middle of any line. This is one dissimilarity. In the disputed signatures the pen starting from point 'a' moves towards the left is a slanting manner and reaches at point 'a' whereas in the specimen signatures the pen starting from point 'b' does not go towards the left but come down to point 'b' perpendicularly. This is another dissimilarity. In the disputed signatures the pen after reaching point 'b' comes down to point `c' and moves towards point 'd' clockwise making an eye 'h' and a small triangle '1, whereas in the specimen signatures the pen after reaching point 'b' moves vertically anti-clockwise and reaches point 'c' making no visible eye resembling eye 'h' in the disputed signatures. This is another dissimilarity. In the disputed signatures the pen after reaching point 'd' comes down to point `e' making another triangle towards the right of small triangle `j', whereas in the specimen signatures the pen after reaching point 'c' comes to point 'd' now making a small triangle 'g' of very low angle in comparison to the traingle, `j' in the disputed signatures which was formed before it in specimen signatures triangle `g' was formed. This is noteworthy that there is no other triangle towards the right of small triangle `g' in the specimen signatures, whereas in the disputed signatures there is a traingle 'k' towards the right of small triangle 'j'. This is another dissimilarity. In the disputed signatures the pen after reaching at point `e' goes towards point 'b' at about 50 degrees angle from the supposed horizontal line, where as in the specimen signatures the pen after reaching point 'd' moves vertically to reach point `e' making 90 degrees angle from the supposed horizontal line. In the disputed signatures there is a mark of pen- lift at point 'b', whereas no such mark can be found at point 'a' in the specimen signatures. While looking through the magnifying glass marks of ink-failing are visible in the disputed signatures which shows that in pen-pressure was low. No such signs are visible in the specimen signatures.
Mark of ink-failing also gives an impression that the pen was moving slowly while making disputed signatures. This usually happens if signatures are initiated. So far as disputed signatures Exh. P. 11 are concerned, they are dissimilar to the specimen signatures in character as his. So in my opinion it is difficult to say that the disputed signatures Exhs. P. 5 and P. 11 were forged by the appellant.
5. There is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for appellant that the dismissal order is liable to be set aside as the enquiry officer used extraneous matters against the appellant. Since 2nd show-cause notice was given to the appellant, he had opportunity to meet the extraneous matter if any, and thus was not prejudiced. It has not been disclosed what extraneous matter was used.
6. This argument is also without force that the charge-sheet is time-barred. The report of Muhammad Akram is dated 25th November, 1978. The charge-sheet is dated 12th December, 1978, so is not time-barred.
' It is argued that as stated by the appellant, his explanation was called in September, 1978 by the Factory Manager, therefore, the charge-sheet is time-barred. No written order calling explanation was brought on the record. Apart from it even if it be said that explanation was called, then that was the show-cause notice and no question of the show-cause notice being time-barred would arise.
7. The other argument is that Mr. R. A. Butt, was Purchase Officer, whereas Factory Production Manager was authorised by the Factory Manager to issue charge-sheet. Annexure 'B' is by Factory Production Manager advised to the Purchase Officer to issuecharge-sheet. The Production Manager himself being the delegatee from the Factory Manager could not further delegate this delegated powers to the Purchase Officer to charge-sheet the appellant. There is no evidence about the duties of the Purchase Office, so it cannot be said that he himself was an employer and thus competent to charge-sheet the appellant. There is also no evidence, if he had any control over the appellant. So the very charge-sheet was not valid.
8. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the dismissal order and the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the appellant is directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.