1. The case of applicant in his application under section 25-A, is that, he was employed as Guard/Peon in the opponent hank and posted in new Cloth Market Branch, Hyderabad. He was involved in a case of committing theft of cheque books and subsequently withdrawing an amount of Rs.30,000 by way of different forged cheques. Subsequently he was acquitted by learned Presiding Officer Special Court (Offences in Banks) on 1-7-1987. According to the applicant during pendency of trial against him he was bailed out and he approached the opponent bank for duty but was orally refused on the ground that enquiry was pending against him and thus he attended the enquiry on 30-10-1984 without receiving any charge-sheet or show-cause notice.
2. Subsequently, according to applicant, he was not informed about the fate of enquiry against him and when he was acquitted on 1-7-1987 he approached the opponent for duty but was verbally informed that he had been dismissed from service long ago. The applicant sent application on 25- 8-1987 for supply of the true copy of order but with no result and thereafter on 19-10-1987 he sent grievance notice but again no response was made and hence he has approached this Court.
3. The case of opponents in their reply statement is that a fraud was detected in the New Cloth Market Branch where the applicant was posted and after investigation the applicant was challaned. Apart from this a show-cause notice dated 19-6-1984 was sent to the applicant by registered post and the same was also served personally on the 'applicant on 28-6-1984.
4. Subsequently a notice of enquiry dated 1-8-1984 was also sent to the applicant under registered cover but he did not participate in the enquiry proceedings. Another show-cause notice dated 10- 9-1984 was sent to the applicant as a result of which the applicant participated in the enquiry and admitted the charge of abscondence and on the basis of report of the Enquiry Officer the dismissal of applicant was ordered.
5. The applicant in support of his case has examined himself and was subjected to cross- examination by Mr. Bashir Awan, Advocate of the opponent while from the side of opponents Messrs Ashiq Husain and Syed Mehmood All Shah were examined and cross-exmained by Mr. Ahsan, Advocate for the applicant. Both sides produced certain documents and their Advocates have been heard at length.
6. Though it has come on the record that the case of theft of cheque books and fraudulent encashment of cheques was filed against the applicant in which he was acquitted and much has been said on this aspect but this is wholly irrelevant as it is neither the cause of dismissal of applicant from service nor the discussion of the same can be of any avail to any of the parties.
7. The important aspect of the case is that the applicant was dismissed, on account of his abscondence from duty, after holding enquiry. It has been admitted by the applicant in his grievance application at para. No. 10 that he participated the enquiry on 30-10-1984 without receiving any charge-sheet or show-cause notice. In his affidavit-in-evidence also he has stated in para. No. 14 that he voluntarily appeared in enquiry to defend himself against the charges of abscondence alleged in show-cause notice dated 10-9-1984 but Enquiry Officer was highly partial and forcibly got his signature on a prepared statement. It thus stands admitted that an enquiry about the abscondence of the applicant was held. The contention of the applicant that the Enquiry Officer was partial and his signatures were obtained forcibly on a prepared statement, is a matter of fact the burden of proof of which was upon the applicant but he has not assigned even a reason as to why the Enquiry Officer was partial one. The opponents have not only examined Mr. Ashiq Husain the Enquiry Officer but have also produced enquiry papers from which it cannot be gathered that applicant was forced to sign already prepared statement. No question was put to the Enquiry Officer as to whether he had any animosty against the applicant to prepare the false statement. There is nothing on the record to show that the enquiry held by the Enquiry Officer suffers from any legal infirmity. The contention of the applicant that he participated in the enquiry without even receiving the charge-sheet or show-cause notice becomes devoid of force on account of the fact that the enquiry papers and the evidence of the Enquiry Officer reveal that he had admitted his abscondence from duty and if at all he wanted to contest he should have made a request for supply of charge-sheet as well as show-cause notice. However, there is not only evidence of the Enquiry Officer but his report also shows that the show-cause notice was served upon the applicant. Besides, the registration receipts and the envelope with A/D receipt also show that the show-cause notice and the charge-sheet were despatched on the address of the applicant and the envelope shows the endorsement of the refusal by the applicant, the necessary presumption of which will be that he did receive the same, and the oral assertion of the applicant will not be sufficient to rebut the documentary evidence.
8. It is an admitted position that the applicant was dismissed from service on 16-12-1984 vide dismissal letter produced as R/11 but the applicant sent the grievance notice on 19-10-1987 after nearly 2 years and 10 months which is hopelessly time-barred. It is, however, contended on behalf of the applicant that since the applicant came to know about his dismissal very late therefore, the time limit will run from date of knowledge. Firstly, the applicant is supposed to have the knowledge of the result of enquiry as he has himself admitted to have participated in the, enquiry. Secondly, it has been admitted by the applicant in para. No. 15 of his grievance application that he sent the grievance notice to the opponent on 19-10-1987 but no response was made and therefore the applicant should have brought the grievance petition before this Court within 60 days i.e. on or before 19-12-1987 as provided by subsection (4) read with subsections (2) and (3) of section 25-A of I.R.O. and thus the grievance petition has become time-barred, for which there appears absolutely no explanation, as to why it was filed on 3-1-1988.
9. For the aforesaid reasons I come to the conclusion that it has not been proved by the applicant that the enquiry held against him was partial one and no opportunity was given to him and further the petition being time-barred I hereby dismiss the same.