Applicant Ghulam Hussain Chandio has moved this grievance application for re-instatement in service of Muslim Commercial Bank and for back benefits.
2. Admittedly the applicant was in service of respondent bank till 24-10-1981 when he was dismissed under letter copy A/3. Prior to that the applicant was issued letter of charge copy R/1 dated 24-3-1981. As per the charge-sheet the applicant being Cashier in Site Branch Kotri of respondent bank received on 14-12-1980 Rs.279.30 and further received on 20-12-1980 Rs.461.80 deposited by Sind Employees Social Security Institution Kotri in their C.D. Account No.121 and also received on 13-7-1980 Rs.300 deposited by Liaquat Ali in his S.B. Account. No.688. These amounts, as alleged, were misappropriated by the applicant who had issued counter-foils of the cash pay-in- slips of said amounts duly stamped and signed by him. Applicant submitted reply but the respondent ordered domestic enquiry against the applicant by Ashiq Hussain. In the enquiry conducted by Ashiq Hussain witnesses Muhammad Iqbal, M. Akhtar, Salauddin and Islamuddin were examined and cross-examined by the applicant vide enquiry proceedings R/9. In his report R/8 the Enquiry Officer found the applicant guilty of misconduct. Applicant was issued final show- cause notice copy A/1 dated 18-10-1981 and he was required to file reply within 3 days. Before he could reply the letter of dismissal copy R/3 dated 24-10-1981 was issued. Applicant submitted departmental appeal copy A-4 on 21-2-1982, but the same was rejected under letter copy A-5 dated 9-5-1982.
3. In his grievance application the applicant alleged that the reports made against him by Liaquat Ali and by the Manager SITE Branch Kotri were false and fabricated and that the charges mentioned in the charge-sheet copy R-1 were false, baseless and unfounded. He challenged the enquiry to be unfair, partial and malicious and alleged that he was not given defence opportunity.
He challenged the report of Enquiry Officer to be partial, perverse and mala fide. Applicant contended that despite his application copy A-8 he was not given time to reply the final show- cause notice. He complained that he was not heard in person before rejection of his appeal. On these grounds he challenged his dismissal to be illegal, void, mala fide, ineffective and against the principles of natural justice. Applicant claimed to have sent to the respondent grievance notice copy A-6 by registered post under receipt copy A-7.
4. Respondent in the reply statement defended the enquiry to be fair and impartial and stated that the applicant participated in the enquiry, was given full and fair opportunity of defence. Applicant was said to have evaded reply to the final show-cause notice. It was denied if the applicant applied for time to reply said notice. It was added that the dismissal order was sent to the applicant under registered cover copy R-3 but he refused to accept. That the dismissal order was published for the applicant in daily Ibrat copy R-4. It was added that the departmental appeal submitted by the applicant was time-barred and hence he was not heard in person. Receipt of the grievance notice was denied. Respondent challenged jurisdiction of this Court and maintainability of the grievance application which was alleged to be time-barred.
5. Parties adduced evidence and their counsel were heard.
6. Mr. Bashir Awan argued that the dismissal was ordered on 24-10-1981 and the grievance notice dated 1-8-1982 was time-barred and so also the grievance application moved on 13-10-1982. He cited 1982 PLC 1007, where Sind High Court held that a worker is entitled to exclude the period which may lapse between the date of filing of a departmental appeal and the date of decision thereupon. It was however, held that in order to exclude the above period, the worker was obliged to show that there-had not been any delay on his Part is submitting the appeal to the department.
It was held that a worker by filing a departmental appeal after 6-7 months from the date of his dismissal from service cannot enlarge the period of limitation Provided for in section 25-A of I.R.O.
Mr. Wasiullah did not explain as to why the departmental appeal was filed so late but he argued that it was decided late. He cited 1982 PLC 863, where the departmental appeal was belated but it was entertained. It was held that since the management did not reject the appeal on the ground of delay but entertained the same, it was not open for the management to claim that the appeal was time-barred. The time taken in filing and deciding the appeal was excluded in computing the prescribed period for service of the grievance notice. In the instant case Departmental appeal was filed on 21-2-1982 and it was decided on 9-5-1982. This period of 2 months and 18 days is to be excluded while computing the period of limitation. Even then the grievance notice copy A-6 dated 1-8-1982 was time-barred. The grievance application based on time barred notice is not maintainable.
7. Mr. Bashir Awan argued that the service of grievance notice was not established. Applicant produced the copy A-6 of grievance notice with copy A-7 of postal receipt. A/ D receipt was not produced. It is not known whether under the postal receipt copy A-7 the grievance notice was sent or anything else was sent to the respondent. I, therefore, hold that it is not proved if the grievance notice was served upon the respondent.
8. On merits there is lot of evidence collected by the Enquiry Officer to show that on the relevant dates the applicant was Cashier in SITE Branch Kotri and that the amount in question was deposited in said branch. The only point favour-able to the applicant was that Mohammad Iqbal in his cross-examination admitted that entire amount alleged to have been misappropriated was deposited by Mohammad Ali and not by the applicant. He also admitted that Muhammad Ali Godown Keeper used to receive the amount from the Social Security Kotri and deposit the same in the branch. Respondent produced in Court a statement copy R-5 said to have been made by the applicant that he had taken loan of Rs.800 from Liaquat Ali and out of that amount Rs.500 were re- paid. In his complaint copy R-21 Liaquat Ali said that he deposited Rs.860 in his account but the same was not credited in record. He produced copy R-22 of pay-in-slip. In same complaint Liaquat Ali stated that he had received Rs.500 from the applicant and the remaining amount remained to be paid to him. This plea of the applicant has been discussed in the enquiry report R-8 and in report copy.R-11 of M. Akhtar Pathan. I, therefore, hold that the applicant was rightly found guilty of the charges.
9. There is force in the contention of Mr. Wasiullah that the applicant was not given proper opportunity to reply the final show-cause notice A-1 despite his application A-8. Although giving of second show-cause notice is not necessary as held in PLD 1981 SC 225, but once it was given the respondent should have considered reply of the applicant and there was no hurry to pass the dismissal order which was passed on 24-10-1981. There is also force in contention of Mr. Wasiullah that the applicant should have been heard before his appeal was decided. The appeal was not thrown out on limitation but it was rejected on merits, as per letter copy A-5. There was thus violation of Rule 10 of Efficiency and Discipline (Banks and Financial Institutions) Rules 1975. Mr. Wasiullah cited 1976 PLC 531, where it was held C that dismissal of appeal without giving personal hearing to the appellant was in violation of the principles of natural justice and such dismissal of appeal cannot be allowed to stand.
10. However, since the grievance notice was not proved to have been served upon the respondent before filing of this case and the grievance notice copy A-6 was time-barred, I hold that this grievance application is not maintainable and it is accordingly rejected.
A.E./921/Lb.S