The respondent No. 1 was employed as Gunman by the petitioner. The said respondent was dismissed from service on the allegation that he handed over the keys of the Branch to a shopkeeper and left the office without handing over the proper charge. The respondent No. 1 filed a grievance petition before the respondent No. 2, who accepted the petition vide order dated 21-8- 1988. The result was that the Gunman was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
The petitioner assailed this order through an appeal before the respondent No. 3, who dismissed the same vide order dated 12-12-1988. Hence now present Constitutional petition.
2. The same was admitted to hearing and the respondent No. 1 has contested the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition argued that the Manager only called for the explanation of respondent No. 1 and the letter, dated 13-12-1981 was not charge-sheet. In the alternative, it is argued that the Zonal Chief considered the show cause and reply thereto and directed to hold domestic enquiry for the charges. It is maintained that there was no confusion or misgivings in the mind of anybody as to the allegations, the basis of disciplinary proceedings. The next argument is that the respondent was fully conscious of his fault and he confessed the same rather he did not contest at any stage, therefore, respondent No. 2 was wrong to accept the petition and respondent No. 3 proceeded illegally to dismiss the appeal of the petitioner. It is vehemently argued that in any casein view of the admission/confession of the respondent No. 1 it was not a fit case for grant of back benefits. The arguments are concluded with the submission that the reinstatement was since ordered on technical ground, therefore, back benefits should not have been allowed.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent argued that the admitted position is that no charge-sheet was issued by the Zonal Chief while he appointed the Enquiry Officer. It is added that it is an afterthought to term the charge-sheet issued by the Manager as a show-cause notice and this is clearly contradicted by Annexures ---F & H/1---. It is argued that the respondent was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses and without which the truth cannot be found out. The arguments are concluded with the submission that since the action against the respondent was illegal, therefore, he was entitled to back benefits and was rightly allowed by the Courts below.
The learned counsel for the petitioner while replying to the arguments of the learned counsel for the contesting respondent submitted that the Enquiry Officer was not a trained Judicial Officer, therefore, he was not supposed to observe technicalities of Qanun-e---Shahadat. It is submitted that the respondent No. 1 had signed all the statements at no stage, he notified that he wanted to cross-examine the witness.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments on both sides and gone through the record. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Manager only issued show- cause notice, which does not advance the case of the petitioner in any manner because then question arises where is the charge-sheet. On the other hand, it was termed as charge-sheet by the Manager and also by the Zonal Chief in subsequent correspondence particularly Annexure `F, through which the Enquiry Officer was appointed. It does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner now to term the charge-sheet issued by the Manager as show-cause notice. Therefore, as far as the reinstatement is concerned there is nothing wrong with the same. The order is fully justified.
5. Now coming to back benefits. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have ignored the basic facts while granting the back benefits. The respondent No. 1 has been reinstated only on technical ground and as a matter of fact the petitioner should have been allowed to initiate fresh proceedings. This was not done. The respondent No.1 in his cross-examination admitted that he was arrested in murder case after his dismissal from the Bank. Above all the petitioner did not contest the allegations against him rather admitted the same, therefore, he was not entitled to back benefits.
6. The upshot of this discussion is that this writ petition is partly accepted. The result is that the impugned orders of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 dated 21-8-1988 and 12-12-1988 to the extent of grant of back benefits are set aside. However, there is no order as to costs.