DECISION This appeal from the order of the Labour Court No. VII at Sukkur reinstating the petitioner on an application under section 25-A of the I.R.O. With full back benefits, arises in the following circumstances:-- The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Cashier with the respondent Bank in May 1973 and was promoted as Senior Cashier in 1976. On 21-7-1977 he was served with a notice to show-cause as to why penalty including dismissal should not be imposed upon him for the acts and omission committed by him in the course of his employment. The allegations were as follows:--
(1) He misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,000 on 17-1-1977 meant for credit to Account No. A-288 of Mr. Ashraf and issued counterfoil duly stamped with `Cash received' Rubber stamp and signed by him. The amount was neither entered in the Cashier's Receipt Register nor accounted for in the other branch books.
(2) He paid the amount of Rs.2,000 of the Saving Bank withdrawal form No.751058 dated 23-10-1976 of Account No. A-288 on which the vernacular signatures was verified by cashier in spite of his knowledge that the cashier was incompetent for that action.
(3) On 4-11-1976 5 Rupees prize bonds for Rs.465 were sold but the transaction was wrongly accounted for by debiting `Prize bond on hand account' with Rs.465 instead of crediting this head of General Ledger and in this way the closing cash balance as on 4-11-1976 became excess by Rs.930 which was pocketted by him. He is responsible for this serious lapse as prize bonds are kept in the joint custody. On 20-11-1976 he credited Rs.930 to `Prize bonds on hand account' when the entry of prize bonds sold was passed wrong and in consequence thereof the closing cash balance as on 4-11-1976 was found excess, the same should have been credited to Sundry Deposit Account under advice to the Controlling Office as required vide para.12 of Chapter VIII of BBI.
(4) The following huge entries amongst many other credit entries excluding the entries regarding salary and fringe benefits in his account prove that his living was beyond his means:-- DateAmountDateAmount 25-8-19754,00012-7-197620,090 27-1-19763,60017-7-19766,860 26-4-19763,00030-8-19766,000 8-6-19766,78018-10-19764,000 23-6-19769,84523-10-19763,000
(5) That he delivered Gold Ornaments to the borrower Mr. Moula Bux on the so-called instructions of the Manager knowingly that the said account was still showing a sum of Rs.624 as outstanding.
He was duty bound to part with the security after satisfying himself that the banks' dues are fully recovered which not only he failed but also concealed this fact from Principal Office, Office/Head Office and the Zonal Authorities too.
(6) That he indulged in other criminal and unsocial activities together with Mr. Deedar Ali which has damaged the reputation of the Bank in the eyes of constituents.
(Sd.)
(H.M. Ajmal Khan)
Vice-President.
2. He had replied to the charge-sheet. As the same was not found to be satisfactory, enquiry was ordered and S.H. Paliwala was appointed the Enquiry Officer. On the submission of his report the petitioner came to be dismissed on the 3rd of May, 1981 with immediate effect. On the 2nd of June, 1981 he had sent a grievance notice and on the 20th of June, 1981 he decided to submit a departmental appeal against his dismissal from service. Later he filed the petition.
3. The Labour Court by its order, dated 13-9-1981 dismissed the petition on the ground of jurisdiction.
An appeal was filed before the Tribunal and matter was remanded to the Labour Court for decision on merit. The parties led their evidence and the petition was allowed with 50% back benefits. There was a challenge before the High Court and the matter was remanded afresh to the Labour Court for decision providing opportunity to the parties to lead further evidence if they so desired.
4. It appears that no evidence was led, and the Labour Court for the reasons given by it, allowed the petition and ordered the re-instatement of the petitioner with full back benefits, resulting in this appeal.
5. The Labour Court in view of the fact that the Enquiry Officer had absolved the respondent of 4 out of the 6 charges which were the subject-- matter of enquiry, decided to restrict its observation only to the remaining two, I will first take up charge No.4.
6. The contention had been raised that the enquiry conducted against the respondent had not been fair and the Enquiry Officer was biased and had put very searching questions to him. It is true that there are many judgments deprecating the use of searching questions from the accused in a criminal case in the- recording of his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. But in a criminal case the accused never features as a witness in his own defence and even in a case before an Anti- Corruption Court, the choice has been left with the accused and is rarely exercised if at all. Before the Labour Court on the other hand he is a necessary witness. I will leave it at that. But the allegations against the impartiality of the Enquiry Officer is totally devoid of any merit. He has given a clean slate about some of the charges where there was incriminating material enough against the respondent. He rounds up his report with the following observation: "During my stay I found him to be very obedient and sincere. All clients of the branch spoke high about him. He had not been found in collaboration in any of the activities with Deedar Ali. He is Psycretic patient and a coward man by nature. I, therefore, absolve him .From this charge."
7. I have all the same chosen to refrain from using any material from the enquiry proceedings and will confine my observations only to what has been said by the respondent himself in the Court, or in his replies to the notice of penalty and the show cause duly signed by him and see if any construction can be placed on the charges against the respondent. He had the following to say in the reply to the notice.
"My living is poor and simple and can be witnessed from anybody of my locality. These entries which are credits in my account bears of temporarily nature.
The funds of wheat procurements of my locality of our village are generally collected from our branch. Hence they authorise me for collection and I credits these funds in my account for disbursement on their own facilities.
These facts can be witnessed from the following persons and can be verified from the wheat procurement bills drawn on our Branch.
(1)Mr. Fazal Ahmed Soomro, Businessman.
(2)Mr. Abdul Kalhi, my uncle.
(3)Mr. Muhammad Usman, my father.
(4)Mr. Mumtaz Ali Magsi, Zamindar.
(5)Mr. Mir Muhammad Awan, Businessman."
8. In the grievance notice he had a little more to say and I will reproduce the contents:-- "(6)That as regards allegation No.4 that my living was beyond my means it is respectfully submitted that my personal living was not at all beyond my means, and the entries referred to in the said allegation does not show that I had obtained the said amount by illegal means, as you know Sir, in Bank service there is no question of obtaining money by illegal means.In this respect I had submitted in my reply of the notice of imposition of penalty that the said amount were kept by me but actually this amount belong to other person. I had also requested that this statement of mine can be verified from the persons whose names were mentioned in the reply of the notice of imposition of penalty. My reply further proves my honesty. Had I been not honest man, none could have relied upon me in respect of such a huge amount. This further proves that I have always been enjoying good reputation andpeople had faith on me."
9. The same thing came to be repeated in his affidavit-in-evidence.
10. In regard to the second charge his reply on the receipt of the notice of imposition of penalty was couched in the following words:-- "(2) The charge of the cash was in hands of the incharge cashier Mr. Deedar Ali, who was competent for verifying the vernacular signatures of the clients as and when he was incharge of the cash and a joint custodian of the branch."
11. In the grievance notice he had the following to say:-- "(4) That the allegation No.2 relates to verification of vernacular signatures by the cashier. The facts of the case are that Mr. Deedar Ali, cashier had verified the vernacular signature and got form No.751058 dated 23-10-1976 passed by the Branch Manager. I was busy at the counter and because of the rush of the work I saw that the said withdrawal form was passed by the Branch Manager and, therefore, I paid the amount. The fault is of Mr. Deedar Ali or of the Branch Manager. I am quite innocent."
12. In his affidavit-in-evidence he had continued in the same strain.
13. On his own showing, his conduct and acts are of a self-condemned guilty person. As an employee of the Bank he could not accept the payments of accounts holders and credit the same in his own accounts. That was not open to him. He says that he had been authorised by some of the village men to do so. He has not produced any-such letter or authority. Nor he had the courage to examine even one of them either in the enquiry proceedings or before the Labour Court, for which there were a number of opportunities.
14. The Bank acts as a repository and custodian of people's assets and fortunes and to retain its goodwill the acts of its employees and officials have got to be above board. Calsars' wife alone, has not to be above suspicion. He had kept others monies with himself to his own pevil. Similarly in the charge No.2 he could not surrender his own satisfaction to the prompting of Deedar Ali. The record shows that this Deedar Ali and the Bank Manager were being run down in a criminal proceeding for defalcation of the Bank's money.
15. The fact that the Enquiry Officer had absolved the respondent of the other 4 charges to my mind did not preclude the learned Presiding Officer from examining the same for himself, because the Labour Courts have been given the powers to see for themselves whether the findings have been properly arrived at and the proceedings were fair.
16. It appears that a sum of Rs.465 remained totally unaccounted from 4-11-1976 to 20-11-1976. Inter alia in his reply to the notice the respondent tried to put up defence by saying:-- "Thus, the excess amount of Rs.930 double of Rs.465 being the difference of Prize Bonds Account which has not been verified between the prize bond register and the balance in the general ledger prize bond account through out this period and were kept by me in the joint custodian safe.
I have not verified the prize bond register with general ledger balance of prize bond account due to heavy work conducted by me through out this period otherwise this technical mistake would have been found easily and accounted for at once.
The amount of Rs.930 have been credited on 20-11-1976. Thus, the General Ledger Prize bond account have been tallied with the prize bond register posted on 4-11-1976. I have not misappropriated the money. The Prize Bond Register is rightly written and can be witnessed."
16. Be that as it may, there is no doubt in my mind that the conduct and the doings of the respondent were unworthy of a man connected with any bank. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the dismissal of the respondent by the bank was well-merited and calls for no interference. I will, therefore, set aside the order of the Labour Court and, allow the appeal.