This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of re-instatement into service of the respondent passed by the Presiding Officer Labour Court Peshawar on 16-6-1987, recording that the alleged misconduct of tampering in the Matriculation Certificate and other record was an event ante employment and that the respondent could not be penalised therefore. He further observed that the respondent could even seek his appointment on the strength of his F.A. Certificate and B.A. Degree and that the filing of the Matriculation certificate was not an essential testimonial for his appointment.
2. Briefly stated, the respondent applied to the Bank for his appointment as Stenographer.
Alongwith his application he filed a photostat copy of his Matriculation certificate showing his marks obtained as 481. On his appointment after test and interview he joined the service in the post of Stenographer on 1-10-1985. Staff record forms were got filled up by him on the same day in which he had shown himself in his own pen and hand to have passed the Matriculation Examination in the year 1979 in second division. On verification of his Matric and F. A. Certificates by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar, it was found that he had in fact obtained 348 marks in his Matriculation Examination and had unlawfully increased the same to 481.
He was accordingly charge-sheeted for the misconduct. In his reply he felt sorry for having indulged in the disgraceful act. The management, however did not pardon him and proceeded to terminate his services for the act of dishonesty as it was not prepared to repose confidence in him any longer. He filed the grievance petition in the Labour Court where he was examined as P.W. I and here too he admitted that he had mentioned his division of Matriculation Examination as second division in the staff record form.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and scrutiny of the record, the findings of the learned Labour Court that the respondent had taken over the charge on 1-10-1985 and that he had not committed any misconduct on 1-10-1985 or thereafter during the course of his employment appears to be a case of misreading on his part, because the staff record form Ex. P.X. Was filled in by the respondent on 1-10-1985 after he joined the service and became a member of the Bank staff and as such he had been proved to have committed misconduct after his joining the service.
Besides the mis--conduct of forgery and tampering of the Matriculation certificate are all acts of misconduct relatable to service. There was placed reliance on the judgment of the Labour Appellate Tribunal (Punjab) published in 1986 PLC 1085, when an employee had mentioned his qualification F.A. Second division and Matric, third division whereas he has not passed F.A.
Examination The requisite qualification for the post was Matric and not F.A. The employee was asked after seven years to produce his F.A. Certificate which he failed, and as a result he was dismissed from service. The learned Appellate Tribunal, in the said circumstances, had held that the order for producing F.A. Certificate after seven years was not in connection with the official work and that the non-production of certificate did not constitute misconduct and that for misstatement of fact about his passing F. A., made prior to entry in the service was bearing no relevancy to his employment. However, in the instant case, the respondent's forgery was found out through verification of his Matriculation certificate from Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar at a very early stage before his confirmation. Further as earlier stated, respondent has been found to have committed the forgery and tampering in relatable documents of service prior to and on the day of joining service and the act of misconduct stood proved against him. Since he had admitted the act of forgery hence there was no necessity for holding a formal inquiry into his case.
4. It was argued that the punishment of termination from service was not even prescribed under the Efficiency and Discipline (Banks and Financial Institutions) Rules 1975. However, the punishment of removal from service which does not disqualify for further employment can be considered at par in meaning and substance with termination of services. Moreover the termination of services is a lesser punishment than the punishments of compulsory retirement, removal from service and dismissal from service, as prescribed under the rules and as such one would not object to the act of magnanimity shown by the employer in awarding the lesser punishment. Last but not the least services of an employee indulged in forgery and tampering with the record cannot be thrust upon the employer and moreso on banks and financial institutions. The non-suitability of such person in bank employment cannot be questioned. There is also drawn a distinction between the employer and the Labour Court that the Labour Court cannot substitute punishment one awarded by the employer who cant however, impose any lesser punishment for a misconduct even one not prescribed under the rules.
5. In view of the above, this appeal is accepted, the judgment and order of the Labour Court dated 16-6-1987 are set aside and the order of the termination of the services of the respondent passed by the employer is accordingly restored. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
M.Y.H./55-L./Lb.N, revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.