By short order, dated 17-12-1984, this Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. For the reasons to be followed. The reasons are as under:-
1. The respondent, one Mohammad Ishaque Kundan was dismissed from service on 18-4-1982, after holding a domestic enquiry. This dismissal was challenged in the Labour Court No.VI at Hyderabad, who vide his order, dated 24-7-1983, set aside the dismissal order and re-instated the respondent with the following observations:- If the management chooses to pass fresh order against the applicant within month, it has also to pass orders about the back benefits, either allowing the same in full or disallowing the same or partially allowing the same."
2. The Management, however, passed a fresh order in accordance with the evidence brought in the enquiry and once again on 15-5-1983 dismissed the respondent. The respondent, therefore, filed a second grievance application under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, in the Sind Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad and the Labour Court once again re-instated the respondent with full back benefits vide its order, dated 11-10-1984. This is an appeal against the said order.
3. The respondent, Mohammad Ishaque Kundan was in the service of the appellants, namely, Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd., at Gari-Khata, Branch, Hyderabad.
4. On 22-11-1981 at about 10.00 a.m., the respondent left his duty in Gari-Khata Branch without permission and went to New Cloth Market Branch where he incited and compelled the Cashiers not to accept unsorted cash and to return the cash brought in the Branch for deposit by Messrs Yaseen Glass Bangle Industries. He became rude and disorderly and aggressive and attempted to assault Qamar Abbas Rizvi, the Manager of that Branch and that he had abused and shouted at the Manager. The allegation was that he displayed disorderly behaviour in the New Cloth Market Branch of the appellant-Bank. He was, therefore, suspended on 25-11-1981 and a charge-sheet was issued against him on 24-11-1981.
5. The said charge-sheet, dated 24-11-1981 was offered to the respondent who refused to receive it and the same was sent to the respondent by registered post alongwith a letter. The respondent was said to have failed to submit a reply and an enquiry was held on 16-12-1981. In the meantime an application was given by the respondent to defend himself. According to the management, in the interest of justice and in order to give a chance to the respondent the enquiry was re-arranged and the copy of the charge-sheet was personally handed over to him. The enquiry was fair and the respondent had shown confidence as per his letter, Exh.R/5. The respondent further did not reply the final show-cause notice and, therefore, he was dismissed. He filed a departmental appeal and hence it contended by the management that the grievance application was premature and not maintainable.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel Mr.Ghulam Rasool Qureshi for the appellants and the learned Advocate for the respondent, Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi.
7. It is necessary to go through the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer and give the synopsis of the evidence so that we arrive at a better conclusion. 'The charge-sheet at page 23 of the Lower Court record carries the following five charges:- "It is alleged against you that:-
(1) On 22nd November, 1981 instead of attending duty at your place of posting, you unauthorisedly visited our New Cloth Market Hyderabad branch during working hours at about 10.00 a.m. And asked the cashiers of the branch to refuse to accept the unsorted currency notes, which were being tendered by the customers of the branch for the deposit in their accounts at that time.
(2) The cash tendered for the deposit to the account of Messrs Yasin Glass Bangle Industries by their representative Mr.Iftikhar Ahmad was accordingly refused for deposit in their account on the ground that the currency notes were unsorted. On the insistance of the customer to the cashiers to accept the currency notes according to the usual practice, you incited and compelled the branch cashiers to return the cash altogether to the representative of Messrs Yasin Glass Bangle Industries.
(3) On asking the cashiers by the Branch Manager Mr.S.Qamar Abbas Rizvi to accept the cash you became rude and aggressive and rushed to the manager's cabin and attempted to hurt him. You also started shouting, abusing and threatened to kidnap him in case further instructions were given by him to the cashiers.
(4) Your unauthorised visit to New Cloth Market, Hyderabad branch during normal working hours and subsequent show of rowdyism and disorderly behaviour in the branch brought a bad name to the branch in particular and the institution in general as the same was witnessed by other customers too.
(5) Due to your above wilful disorderly behaviour during the working hours at our New Cloth Market Hyderabad branch, the branch.. In particular and the institution in general was deprived of the deposits resulting in loss of business to the institution from which you earn your bread and butter.
' Abbas Rizvi cannot concoct the story as divulged in the charge-sheet. In the second dismissal order the charges, namely, 3 and 4 said to be proved which appears to carry a typographical mistake as the charge No.1 is a basic charge which is proved on all score. Unnecessarily the main story is broken into 5 charges but the story as narrated by Qamar Abbas Rizvi carries all the charges and respondent is undoubtedly guilty of misconduct.
18. The learned counsel of the respondent has raised certain legal objections. The first legal objection is that the charge-sheet was time-barred. The time-bar issue was answered by both the learned Presiding Officers, namely, the order, dated 27-4-1983 by Mr.Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo and also by Mr. Naser Hussain Jaffery in his impugned order. One Nooruddin in paragraph 4 of his affidavit has stated that the charge-sheet and the suspension letter were offered to the respondent who refused to receive the same. The charge-sheet was received in the Branch on 24- 11-1981 and the suspension letter was received in the Branch on 25-11-1981. These documents contained the endorsements that the respondent refused to receive delivery of the same. The letter of suspension mentioned the fact that a charge-sheet, dated 24-11-1981 was issued against the respondent. In these circumstances, the respondent should have called the copies of the charge- sheet. The charge-sheet was sent to the respondent by registered post, A/D at his residential address. It was not alleged if the address mentioned in the letter was incorrect. It was held in an authority cited in 1982 PLC 676 that when the charge-sheet was sent through registered post in a cover properly stamped and addressed the workman was deemed to have been served with the charge-sheet under Order 15(4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, even if the A/D receipt was not signed by the workman concerned. Accordingly, I feel that the respondent shall be deemed to have been served with the charge sheet on 5-12-1981, namely, the date mentioned in the A/D receipt. I, therefore, hold that the charge-sheet was not time-barred.
19. Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi referred to the second show-cause notice and cited an Authority reported in 1984 PLC 1506. In this citation the Disciplinary Rules of Banks as enunciated in the 1st Wage Commission Award were discussed. The second show-cause notice under para. 253 (5) was held mandatory but the second show-cause notice under Standing Order 15(4) was not necessary. This citation does not help the respondent. In the citation an enquiry was held under 1st Wage Commission Award and not under Standing Order 15(4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.
20. The learned Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the charges Nos.2 and 5 are proved then the charges Nos.1, 3 and 4 should be deemed to have not been proved or at least they are doubtful. This type of reasoning is fallacious. The main incident took place on 22-11-1981 for which there is overwhelming evidence as reproduced above. Clearly in the evidence the respondent cannot be absolved from disorderly behaviour and advancing threats which were deadly and dangerous. There is no doubt that the respondent is guilty of gross misconduct.
21. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the learned Labour Court and allow this appeal.