' The appeal. Captioned above arises from the decision dated 26-11-1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,7, Gujranwala, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for his re-instatement in service was accepted without back benefits. The respondent too has filed cross-objections to the extent of claiming back benefits, which are being disposed of alongwith the appeal.
2. The respondent was Officer-II in Cantt. Branch, Sialkot in 1977. He was then transferred to Haripur branch as Manager. In respect of misconduct alleged to have been committed by him in Cantt.
Branch and in Haripur Branch he was given charge-sheet Exh.P-1 dated 31-5-1980. Charges Nos,1 to 8 relate to the period when the respondent was in Cantt. Branch and charge No,9 relates to the misconduct committed in Haripur Branch. Before he was charge-sheeted he submitted written apology Exh.R-2 admitting charge No,9 only. However, in reply to charge-sheet he denied charges Nos 1 to 8. With regard to charge No,9 he said that in his absence Rs,50,000 were delivered by the cashier to one Muhammad Tufail, which the latter had paid back to the cashier and that in order to hush up the matter he did not credit the deposits of the customers and instead credited to the account from which Rs,50,000 had been paid. He also said that when he was transferred from there, he deposited the amounts in the Khata of the account holder by selling the ornaments of his wife.
3. The learned lower Court has, only on account of technical defect directed the re-instatement of the respondent which is that the second show-cause notice was given after passing the dismissal order. The respondent has not in cross-objections said that on facts the case was not proved against him, so this aspect of the case cannot be considered in this appeal. Issuing of second show-cause notice is necessary in cases of nationalised banks. Para. 258(5) of first Wage Commission Award is clear on the point. After the enquiry is completed, the report is to be sent alongwith the statement of the employee. Unless the copy of the report is delivered to the employee concerned, he is not in a position to make statement with regard to the enquiry report.
So asking him to give statement after the delivery of copy of the report to him is a reply to the second show-cause notice. Admittedly, second show-cause notice was issued much after the Head Office had passed the dismissal order and had asked the Zonal Head to convey it to the respondent. The conviction of the respondent with regard to charges Nos,1 to 8 was therefore, illegal. However, since before the charge-sheet and reply to the charge-sheet the respondent admitted the allegation covered by charge No,9 the lack of issuance of second show-cause notice is not serious defect. When charge has been admitted, it is not necessary even to hold enquiry.
Since the findings of Inquiry Officer on charges B 1 to 8 cannot be used against the respondent on account of lack of issuance of second show-cause notice, the dismissal under charge No,9 was not maintainable. If the employer had been aware that the respondent could be convicted and punished on charge No,9 only, the possibility cannot be excluded that any other punishment short of dismissal may C have been passed. So 1981 PLC 984 applies to this case. As on purely technical ground the re-instatement of the respondent has been ordered, he has been rightly disallowed back benefits.
4. As a result, the appeal and cross-objections are dismissed,