Saeed Hassan, petitioner was employed as a Typist in Packages Limited. On 14-6-1983, he was charge sheeted for misconduct on the allegation that he had defrauded the Company. He denied the charge and a domestic inquiry was instituted against him in which he was proved to be guilty.
He was dismissed from service by order dated 30-10-1983. He has felt aggrieved and after serving notice has come to this Court with the prayer that the order of dismissal should be set aside and he should be reinstated in service.
2. The petition has been opposed. It is alleged in the written statement that the petitioner submitted bogus claim for over-time and charged money, thus he intentionally defrauded the Company and is guilty of misconduct. After performing all the necessary formalities he has been dismissed from service and the order is not open to exception.
3. On 12-6-1983, Mr. Usman Ali, R.W.2 submitted a report Ex. R-7 to the Manager. He observed that the petitioner has been attending the office on Fridays to work over-time. In fact, he claimed over- time for 8 hours but virtually worked less than this period. He quoted the instances that on 3-3-1983 he came on duty at 8-15 a.m. And left the factory at 2-40 p.m. Similarly, on 29-4-1983 he came on duty at 8-00 a.m. And left the factory at 2-32 p.m. Again op 13-5-1983 he came at 8-00 a.m. And left the factory at 2-33 p.m. On these three days he did not work for eight hours but charged over- time for this period. On receiving this report, the Factory Manager referred the matter to the Personal Manager for necessary action and he issued charge-sheet Ex. P-1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the charge-sheet on the ground that it is time-barred. He has argued that excess over-time claimed on 3-3-1983 could become valid ground for charge-sheet if the petitioner was charged on this ground within 30 days. The charge-sheet dated 14-6-1983 is time- barred. I do not agree. Standing Order 15(4) provides that no order of dismissal shall be made unless the workman concerned is informed in writing of the alleged misconduct within one month of the date of such misconduct or of the date on which the alleged misconduct comes to the knowledge of the employer. In the instant case, the misconduct came to the knowledge of the employer i.e. The hill Manage on 12-6-1983 and the charge-sheet was issued two days thereafter; 1, therefore, do not find the charge-sheet as time-barred.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was not allowed opportunity to lead defence in the inquiry proceedings. The learned counsel, however, could not substantiate this contention. Perusal of inquiry proceedings Ex. R-5 reveals that the inquiry officer asked the petitioner by order dated 8-8-1983 to produce his defence evidence on 9-8-1983 at 12 noon. On the date fixed ;or hearing, the petitioner did not turn up with the result the his evidence had to be closed. Now it does not fit in the mouth the petitioner to say that he was not given opportunity to produce his defence. He has virtually declined the opportunity himself.
5. The learned counsel has next contended that even if all the stated by the respondent are admitted as correct even then no misconduct was committed by the petitioner. On the contrary it ha been explained that by claiming over-time in excess of the time actually spent by him amounts to committing fraud in connection with the business or property of the employer and the case is covered by S.O. 15(3)(h) of the Standing Orders Ordinance. I do not agree. It was not a case of fraud. Under the Rules, the petitioner could claim over-time only in respect of period spent by him in doing the jot beyond his normal working hours. When he worked for 6 and hall hours but claimed over-time for 8 hours it was disobedience of the rules and his case would be covered by S.O.15(1)
(ii)(a) of the Standing Orders Ordinance and he could adequately be punished with imposition of fine. In the circumstances of the case his dismissal from service is not justified.
6. In view of what has been said above I accept this petition, set aside the impugned order and reinstate the petitioner in service with immediate effect. Since his re-instatement is on a technical ground, he is not entitled to back benefits. The respondent will however be at liberty to finalize his departmental action treating the misconduct of the petitioner as indicated above.