1. The decision, dated 23-10-1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted with back benefits.
2. The respondent was Accountant in Allied Bank Branch, Gilgit. The charges made against him are detailed in charge-sheet Exh. P-1 and need not be recapitulated in this judgment. There were in all nine charges. Only one witness i.e. The complainant was examined who said that all the unauthorised transfers to the party's accounts and DACs/POs pertained to the tenure of the respondent as Accountant, but original documents were not produced in evidence, nor the witness said that all of them were signed by him (the respondent) nor he said that he being familiar with the signatures of the respondent had identified that the signatures were his. The respondent admitted his signatures but admitted only few charges and not all. He did not admit charges Nos.
2. 3, 5, 7 and 8. He said about the other charges that he signed in good faith the documents prepared by the then Manager not doubting the integrity of the said Manager. So far as the embezzlement is concerned, the inquiry officer has exonerated the respondent. He says that negligence of the respondent was that he did not report the false transactions of the Manager to the hi6her authorities. Since the solitary witness did not say that he had identified the signature of the respondent on the voucher and other documents admittedly not prepared by him but by the Manager, only those documents could be considered which the respondent admitted. Since out of nine charges the respondent admitted only five, the remaining remained unproved. If the enquiry officer had found the respondent guilty of five charges only, possibility cannot be excluded that the employer may have prescribed some other kind oaf punishment short of dismissal. So 1981 PLC 981 applies the case and the order of dismissal could not be maintained and was rightly set aside by the learned lower Court although on different grounds. It appears that the employer afterwards realised that in the circumstances of the case the punishment of dismissal was excessive so offered to re-employ the respondent. Since some charges were proved on account of the admission of the respondent, the latter succeeded on a technical ground and thus he was not entitled to back benefits.
3. As a result, the appeal is partly accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the respondent is disallowed back benefits.
4. A.E.