' The brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant, who was a Store Supervisor, was charge-sheeted for misappropriation of fertilizer worth Rs,21,588 and cotton-seed, wheat seed and empty bags worth Rs,2,429 and for remaining absent from 12-6-1977 upto the date of charge-sheet. He did not give any reply to the charge-sheet. He appeared in the enquiry but boycotted it. He was dismissed from service on 3-5-1978.
2. The case of the appellant is that the charge-sheet is time-barred. F.I.R. Was lodged with the police on 20-6-1977 meaning that at least on the said date the defalcation had come to the knowledge of the employer. According to the appellant, charge-sheet was delivered to him on 7- 9-1977. The contention of the respondent, however, on this point is that the charge-sheet was given on 26-7-1977. Reliance has been placed upon Exh.D-1. Under Exh.D-1 the signatures of the appellant with date in his hand were received. He admitted his signatures in cross-examination but the matter does not end here. No doubt in the last sentence of this document it is mentioned. He has further stated and confirmed that he has received his charge-sheet from Regional Manager Office PA D & SC, Sargodha, but this last sentence clearly appears to have been added after the appellant had left. Careful and concentrated examination reveals that if the last sentence starting with the words "He has further" had been typed at the time the remaining body of the document was typed, then the upper portion of the letters of the words of the first line of the sentence would have touched the straight line drawn by me just as the upper portion of the letter of the word "inquiry" are touching the said line drawn by me. But as will be noticed there is a sufficient gap left between the line drawn by me and the first line of the last sentence. Similarly the lower ends of the letters of the words of the first line of the last sentence would have occurred over the line drawn by me under the word 'enquiry' and would not have touched somewhat in the middle of the letter 'H' of the word 'He'. Again the last sentence is not typed parallel to the other typing situated above but is leaving bit downwards. Since the paper was not carefully and correctly set in the typewriter, therefore, the newly-added line could not come in line with the previous words "proceeding of enquiry". It may be further noticed that the space between fifth line and sixth line towards the left and is normal but towards the right is greater. This is apparent that originally the contents of the document ended on the words "proceeding of enquiry". After completing the document upto the last words "proceeding of enquiry" and after typing the words (Mohammad Afzal), District Manager PAD & SC, Jhang", the paper was taken out of the typewriter and after it was signed by Mr. Mohammad Afzal and the appellant, and after the appellant had left at some convenient time it was be set in the typewriter and the last sentence marked by me as A to B, A was added to show that on 26-7-1977 the appellant had admitted the receipt of the charge-sheet. This was done obviously to circumvent the provisions of Standing Order 15(4) of the Standing Order Ordinance which enjoins upon the employer to give information in writing of the alleged misconduct within one month of its commission or the knowledge of its commission. The appellant, therefore, is correct in saying that the charge-sheet was delivered to him on 7-9-1977. The charge-sheet, therefore, was time-barred. The appellant in these circumstances could not be dismissed.
3. As a result of the observations made above, I accept the appeals setting aside the impugned decision of the lower court and the order dismissal, direct the reinstatement of the appellant in service. Since the appellant has succeeded on a technical ground, he is not entitled to back benefits.