The appeal captioned above challenges the decision dated 20-2-1989 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, IX, Multan, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service has been dismissed.
2. The allegations for which the appellant was dismissed from service were that on 31-8-1982 an account-holder Muhammad Akram had deposited Rs,900 with him but the appellant did not enter the amount in the relevant books. On 4-9-1982 another account-holder Haji Amir Muhammad delivered Rs,1,000 to the appellant but he did not enter the amount in the books though had issued the receipt. In answer to the charge-sheet the appellant admitted the receipt of Rs, 900 but contended that since the amount had been deposited by him in the account of the account- holder afterwards, he did not commit any dishonesty. The receipt of Rs,1,000 was not admitted by him and this fact was tried to be proved by evidence during the inquiry. Mahmood-ul-Hasan, Manager appeared as witness and he proved this fact. Sheikh Muhammad Riaz, the other witness, supported Mahmood-ul-Hasan, Manager.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the grievance notice dated 16-6-1984 was time-barred, inasmuch as the dismissal order is dated 2-5-1983. The appellant made an application for condonation of delay, which has not been properly considered by the learned lower Court. The grievance petition was lodged on 8-7-1984. First departmental appeal, copy of which is Exh. P-5, was lodged by the appellant. Reply to this appeal is Exh. P-6 dated 30-5- 1983. The reply is to the effect that the appeal be submitted through proper channel. Thereafter, the appellant lodged another appeal, copy of which is Exh. P-7 which is dated 18-6-1981 There is an endorsement of its having been received on the same date. No reply to this appeal was brought on the record by the respondents. The appeal, copy of which is Exh. P-7, was sent within three months of the order of dismissal, therefore, it extended the time. The appellant waited for considerable time but when no reply came, he gave the grievance notice which was followed by the presentation of the grievance petition. The grievance notice and the grievance petition, therefore, have been wrongly held by the learned lower Court to be time-barred.
4. Since the receipt of Rs,900 was admitted by the appellant and this amount was deposited by him in the account of the account-holder much afterwards, he committed temporary misappropriation of the money but so far as the receipt of Rs,1,000 is concerned, although the evidence was brought during the inquiry but no proper opportunity of defence was afforded to the appellant. There is a statement of the appellant recorded by the Inquiry Officer to the effect that he did not want to produce any defence, but the said statement does not carry any date. If this statement was made by him before the prosecution evidence was produced, it was not effective, because the appellant could decide to produce defence or not after the close of the prosecution evidence. Since only one of the two charges stood proved, the order of dismissal could not be passed. If the inquiry report had been to the effect that only one charge had been established, possibility cannot be excluded that the employer may have prescribed some other B kind of punishment short of dismissal. It appears that since the report of the Inquiry Officer was that both the charges were established, the employer decided that such a person should not be spared.
However, as on technical grounds the I appellant succeeds, he is not entitled to back benefits.
5. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court the appellant is directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits.