DECISION ' This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court, Karachi whereby the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back benefits. The circumstances giving rise to the dispute in brief are as follows:-- ' The petitioner was working as a clerk in the respondent Sugar Mills since 2-9-1989. On 21-11-1990 he was served with a charge-sheet which reads as follows:-- "During audit of the Fair Price Shop a large shortage is found in the funds, which is about Rs,20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand). You were transferred in Fair Price Shop to maintain its record so that such shortage can be observed. But it seems that you have totally failed to maintain the record of shop which is against terms and conditions of your appointment.
' As per statement of Fair Price Shop incharge Rs,2,103 of shop are due to you which shows that you are physically involved in the shortage.
' Your above acts of ignorance and mishandling of company funds constitute misconduct on your part under West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.
' You are therefore, hereby charge-sheeted to show cause within 48 hours of receipt of this letter as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you."
2. A reply had followed, but as the same was not found to be satisfactory an enquiry was ordered.
The only person examined against the petitioner was Saghir Ahmed. The statement of the petitioner was also recorded. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the charge as he was of the opinion that the petitioner should have examined some evidence in support of his version to the effect that the money had been taken to him as a loan. Agreeing with the report, the respondent dismissed the petitioner from service on January 10, 1991. The petitioner after the despatch of the grievance notice dated 2-3-1991 which was not replied to, filed the petition.
3. The petition came to be resisted on the ground that it was time-barred. It was also averred that the proceedings were conducted in a very fair and impartial manner where the petitioner was given full opportunity to examine his witnesses if he so desired. The other contentions came to be denied.
4. The Labour Court found that the charge-sheet was time-barred; that the enquiry had not been properly conducted and that there was no misconduct as such. At any rate the petitioner was not guilty of the same. The petition was accordingly allowed resulting in this appeal.
5. I had heard Dr. Raees Mushtaq for the appellant but Mr. Ishaq Abbasi learned counsel for the respondent did not choose to attend.
6. I am afraid I do not agree with the finding of the learned Labour Court in regard to the charge- sheet being beyond time. Ahmed Khan Chandio the witness of the respondent had stated that the involvement of the petitioner was brought to the notice of the appellants after the statement of Akbar Khan the main culprit had been recorded. According to him the same had been made a week before the charge-sheet came to be issued. There is nothing to controvert the statement. It cannot therefore be said that the appellant had the knowledge of the guilt of the respondent and had failed to take any action within the stipulated time.
7. Nor can any fault be found with the holding of the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer was also examined before the Labour Court. There were no personal allegations against him. The respondent had participated and signed it. However, we have still to see whether there is any misconduct substantiated against the respondent.
8. On the showing of the appellants the respondent was a clerk maintaining the record of the office.
Even the charge-sheet shows that he had been deputed to the Fair Price Shop to maintain the record, but had failed to do the same. All that Saghir Ahmed had to say at the enquiry was that he had been told by the respondent, that he had taken a loan of Rs,2,103 from Akber Khan the main culprit' and the same had been paid back to him. Akber Khan who is alleged to have incriminated the respondent had neither been examined during the enquiry nor thereafter. So we are left only with the statement of the, respondent. His version all along has been that this amount had been obtained from him as a loan from Akber Khan and had been re-paid. As mentioned earlier Akber Khan had not been produced and if the statement of the respondent himself was to be acted upon by the appellants, it had to be taken as a whole. It was not open to the appellant to believe in part and discard the other part. ctually there is no evidence of any embezzlement against the respondent nor could there be any evidence of embezzlement, as he had nothing to do with the cash. That was the sole responsibility of Akber Khan looking to the appellant's own version. There was no evidence worth the same before the Enquiry Officer or thereafter. The question of misconduct does not arise at all.
9. I am therefore of the opinion that the appeal is devoid of all merit. In the result the impugned order is affirmed and the appeal stands dismissed.