DECISION Mehran Khan Jatoi was working as a Jamadar Messenger at Moro Branch of the National Bank of Pakistan. On the 8th of April, 1986 there was an altercation between him and Kamaluddin, the Head Cashier of the Branch. He was served with a charge-sheet on 21-4-1986 and after due consideration of the reply, a domestic enquiry was ordered. Mehmood Khan the Enquiry Officer had examined a number of persons out of whom 2 were on behalf of Mehran Khan Jatoi and had submitted his report to the authorities. He came to be dismissed on 24-10-1986. The departmental appeal having been rejected he served a grievance notice and filed the petition.
2. The petitioner apart from himself had examined Anwar Ali and Amir Ali while Mehmood Khan the Enquiry Officer, Muhammad Akram, Habibullah, Syed Waziruddin and Kamaluddin appeared on behalf of the respondent.
3. The Labour Court dismissed the petition and the matter came up in appeal before this Tribunal.
The then learned Chairman of the Tribunal allowed the petition with full back benefits which was challenged in a Constitutional petition in the High Court. The petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to this Tribunal for a fresh decision.
4. The appellant in reply to the charge-sheet had in clear terms admitted his slapping Kamalauddin. He had however qualified it by saying that he had been subjected to abuses on the latter's part. This is in his own handwriting. In the statement he had mentioned the names of three persons namely Bashir Ahmed, Akram and Nazir Mian as witnesses of the incident. Nasir Mian could not be examined in the course of enquiry because he had been transferred elsewhere, but the other two persons Bashir Ahmed and Muhammad Akram do not advance his case. Even his witness Noor Ali on the material date was posted at Moro as testified by Syed Waziruddin. He states to have come to Moro for exchange of some currency notes when subjected to cross--- examination at the Labour Court. It is proverbially rash to believe a chance witness and even the affidavit filed by him betrays his anxiety to keep a cover on the happenings. He states that Kamaluddin had "cried that Mehran had slapped him but actually not slapped him". However, the evidence as given by Muhammad Akram and others unmistakably makes out where the truth lies and that is also what was admitted by the appellant in his reply.
5. It appears that after the incident the appellant was transferred and did not report for duty for 5 days from the 14th to 18th of April. He had been served a notice as to why this period should not be treated as leave without pay and was called upon to reply within 3 days. In his reply the appellant had mentioned that he did not report for duty because of a bereavement in the family. It was in that context that he had received the following reply: "With reference to his application dated 7-5-1986 Mr. Mehran Khan Jatoi Jar: Messenger is advised that (sic) P/L in special case to be sanctioned w.e.f. 14-4-1986 to 18-4-1986 with warning that such mistake should not be repeated in future."
6.This letter dated 20th May, 1986 has no bearing at all with the incident of slapping Kamaluddin.
7. The record shows that the authorities, as was to be expected, were moving in the matter and Mehmood Khan was appointed as Enquiry Officer to hold enquiry against the appellant and also Kamaluddin. He had issued the letter to the appellant to appear before him on the 14th of October.
It cannot therefore be said that the incident of slapping had been shelved or that the appellant had been absolved of such a serious charge.
8. The mere fact that the Enquiry Officer had accepted the statement of the witnesses in writing, in the circumstances of the case will not matter. The appellant himself had in reply to the show- cause notice and also at the enquiry admitted unequivocally that he had slapped Kamaluddin. The record shows that he had been roused to fury because Kamaluddin had not obliged him by out of turn en-cashing account-holder's cheque brought by him.
9. It was a wanton and destardly assault on a senior member of the staff and the dismissal order was not open to any exception.
10. In the result I will uphold the impugned order of the Labour Court and dismiss the appeal.