DECISION ' This appeal arises from the order of Sindh Labour Court No, VII, Sukkur Camp at Hyderabad whereby the grievance application of Cashier of Allied Bank of Pakistan for his reinstatement in service was dismissed on 5th day of June, 1994.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant was working as a Cashier in the Allied Bank of Pakistan, Public School Branch, Hyderabad. It was his duty to collect the amounts of utility bills from the public at this Branch. From February, 1992 to June, 1992 the appellant misappropriated, the cash amount of Rs,12,962 and Rs,12,356 respectively. Thus, an amount of Rs,25,318 was misappropriated by the appellant in respect of telephone and gas bills. The Manager of the Branch got the sense that all was not right with the utility bills cash amounts received in his Branch. He, therefore, asked the Head Office to depute an Auditor to check the utility bills account in the Bank.
The Auditor, who was accordingly deputed, submitted his report to the Vice-President, Audit and Inspection Division, Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd., Karachi on October 1, 1992, that cashier Muzzaffaruddin had misappropriated an amount of Rs,25,318 for a period varying from 1 to 21 days in respect of amounts collected on account of telephone and gas bills of the consumers. On 19-10- 1992 the appellant was served with a charge-sheet for misconduct that he had misappropriated the above amounts. In reply to the charge-sheet the appellant stated that it was on account of extraordinary reasons that he was compelled to commit this misappropriation in order to meet immediate needs, for emergency treatment of his ailing wife, who was on death bed, that he had committed the misdeed, to overcome his urgent needs and the amounts of bill have since been deposited back by him. He requested for pardon undertaking not to misappropriate any amount in future. The Bank held a domestic enquiry in the alleged misappropriation and informed the appellant by letter, dated 6-2-1993 that the charges have been proved against him and it had been decided to dismiss him from service with immediate effect. The appellant preferred a Departmental Appeal against his dismissal to the Chairman of the Allied Bank of Pakistan, Karachi and thereafter served him with a grievance notice on 30-5-1993. The Bank replied that the notice was time-barred, that the dismissal order was legal and hence the grievance notice was rejected.
The appellant filed his grievance petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Before the Labour Court.
The Labour Court passed the order on 5-6-1994 that there was no merit in the grievance petition and it was, accordingly, dismissed.
3. The only point urged by Mr. Syed Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for the appellant is that the misappropriation of the amounts was committed during the months of May to August, 1992 the charge-sheet served on the appellant on 19-10-1992 was time-barred since it had to be served within thirty days of the alleged misconduct under Standing Order 15(4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.
4. It has, on the other hand, been pointed out by Mr. Muhammad Faruq Ghani on behalf of the Allied Bank of Pakistan that in this case the alleged misconduct came to the notice of the employer only when the report of the Auditor was sent to the Head Office on 1-10-1992, that the charge-sheet was issued within 19 days on 19-10-1992 and the reply to the charge-sheet was also given in writing by the appellant confessing his guilt. The charge-sheet was, therefore, within thirty days of the date on which the alleged misconduct came to the notice of the employer. The learned counsel has further stated that the reasons given for the alleged misconduct was not true since the Bank provided free medical treatment for the bank's employee and his family members. Mr. Rizvi has argued that the misappropriation must have come to the knowledge of the Manager when he asked for an auditor to check the utility bills receipts account. However, that was not in respect of the appellant alone but on suspicion audit was conducted to check the entire account involving all the Cashiers dealing with utility bills. It was only when the specific misappropriations by the appellant were detected that the Head Office was informed by the Report of the Auditor. The charge-sheet was not, therefore,time-barred. The appellant has himself confessed the misappropriation.
5. As regards the domestic enquiry the appellant had not complained about any defect or partiality in the enquiry against him. He only asked for forgiveness but such persons with suspicious character cannot be retained in the Bank employment as public would lose their confidence in the Banking System of the country if their deposits are misappropriated by the Bank employees themselves. Alt the Bank officials must be above suspicions.
6. I, therefore, find no substance in this appeal and it is, accordingly dismissed.