' The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 15-9-1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,6, Rawalpindi, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement in service.
2. The allegations against the appellant were that he committed fraud and forgery in collaboration with one Muhammad Khalil for obtaining cheque book unauthorisedly and, thereafter, in withdrawing Rs,3,000 from S.B. Account No, 13181 of one Khalil-ur-Rehman. This is evident from the charge-sheet that it was not made clear what was done by the appellant in collaboration with Muhammad Khalil which amounted to misconduct. The charge-sheet is, therefore, vague. Two witnesses were examined during the enquiry namely Muhammad Yaqoob and Nisar Hussain Shah.
The latter was under enquiry alongwith the appellant and thus was a co-accused. Both of them did not disclose the actual act done by the appellant. The only evidence is that Muhammad Khalil who obtained the cheque book in connection with another person's account namely Khalil-ur-Rehman, belonged to the village of the appellant. This is not sufficient. The other thing is that the appellant on detection that from the account of Khalil-ur-Rehman, a different account-holder, Rs,3,000 had been withdrawn by Muhammad Khalil, got the amount recovered from Muhammad Khalil. Both the witnesses have stated that the matter was concealed from the higher authorities. There is no evidence that Muhammad Khalil was identified by the appellant to be Khalil-ur-Rehman, from whose account the amount was withdrawn. There is no evidence that the appellant varified the signatures, nor this is the allegation against him. Therefore, there is no proof that the appellant in any manner played fraud. Simple fact that he helped in getting Rs,3,000 recovered from Muhammad Khalil that were wrongly withdrawn from another person's account, does not raise any presumption that he had hand in this fraud. No rule has been shown to the effect that failure to report an incident of wrong or wrongful withdrawal of money to the higher authorities, is misconduct. So, the allegations against the appellant were wrong and they were not established in the enquiry. The learned lower Court failed to take notice of the above facts.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the charge-sheet was given by an incompetent authority i,e, the Branch Manager, inasmuch as the dismissal order was passed by the Zonal Chief. This objection was not raised in the grievance notice or grievance petition, nor in memo. Of appeal, so the respondent had no opportunity to meet it in evidence.
4. The enquiry too was defective. According to paging of the enquiry proceedings, the statement of the appellant was recorded before recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and thereafter his statement was not recorded to give him opportunity to explain the material brought against him by the prosecution evidence. There is no mark of cross-examination. No opportunity of production of defence was afforded. He did not say that he did not want to examine any witness in defence. The punishment awarded upon such a defective enquiry, therefore, was not maintainable.
5. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court and the dismissal order, the appellant is directed to be re-instated in service. He did not say that he remained unemployed during the period of his dismissal, so he is not entitled to back benefits.