' This is an appeal against the decision dated 26-4-1977 of Punjab Labour Court No, 8, Multan.
2. Liaqat Ali, appellant was employed as a Cashier in Habib Bank Limited, Sahiwal Zone, Sahiwal. He was charged with misappropriation of Rs, 681.34, a total amount of three telephone Bills Nos. SWL 2412, 2415 and 2435, deposited with him on behalf of the subscriber of the telephones on 10.6-1976 for the month of April, 1976. Subsequently, on a complaint made by the Accounts Officer (Revenue)
Telephones, Sahiwal, it transpired that the bill amounts received by the appellant were not entered by him in the Bank scroll of that day, despite having delivered duplicate copies of the bills to the subscriber with a stamp showing the receipt of the cash on each bill alongwith his own signatures.
On being interrogated, the appellant deposited the said amount on 21-6-1976 without the knowledge of his Officer Incharge. He was further charged to the effect that he had been found negligent in the performance of his duties in regard to the balancing of certain ledgers in the past and inordinately delaying their completion elaborately referred to in the charge-sheet, Exh. P-1.
3. Since his explanation to the charge-sheet was found unsatisfactory, an enquiry was held against him on 12-8-1976 and 17-8-1976. He participated in the enquiry proceedings on 12-8-1976 but did not participate on 17-8-1976. In the enquiry he was found guilty and as a result thereof, he a as dismissed from service vide order Exh. R-13 dated 22-9-1976 by the Vice-President of the Bank.
4. The appellant challenged the order of his dismissal by way of a petition lacier section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the Labour Court, which dismissed the same vide decision in appeal.
5. Aggrieved by the above decision, Liaqat Ali, appellant has preferred this appeal.
6. On going through the enquiry proceedings, I find that no statement, of P. Ws. Were recorded and the appellant was straightaway cross-examined by one Mr. Ghazi on 12-8-1976. Mr. Ghazi also at the same time made a statement, In other words it was a joint statement of both Mr. Ghazi and the appellant. In the case of The West Pakistan Road Transport Workers' Union (Regd.), Rawalpindi v.
The Road Transport Corporation, Lahore it was held that a joint statement of two witnesses in a domestic enquiry was not a statement in the eye of law.
7. The fact that the appellant was straightaway questioned shows that the onus was on him and not on the respondent to prove the charge against him. In the case, Antalya Ratan Mukherjee v. Dy.
Chief Mechanical Engineer, Eastern Railway and others, it was observed that the departmental enquiry must not be conducted in a manner as if the onus is on the petitioner B to establish his innocence.
8. The appellant was not given an opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Ghazi and, therefore, the enquiry was not proper. I am fortified in this view by the judgment in the case, Stir Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd. v, Their Workmen.
9. In the case, Meenglas Tea Estate v. Their Workmen it was observed :- "A workman who is required to answer a charge of misconduct in a domestic enquiry must know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. He must be given a fair chance to hear evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way of cross-examination as he desires. Then he must be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him. This is the barest minimum of a domestic enquiry and this requirement must be substantially fulfilled before the result of the enquiry can be accepted.
' Therefore, an enquiry which is made by persons who were not only in the position of Judges but also of prosecutors and witnesses and which consisted of putting questions to each workman in turn, no witness being examined in support of the charge before the workmen were questioned, would amount to such a travesty of the principles of natural justice that a Tribunal would be justified in rejecting the findings and asking the employer to prove the allegation against each workman de novo before it."
10. Relying on the above decisions, I hold that the enquiry was not held in accordance with the principles of natural justice and as such, the verdict of the Enquiry Officer, on the basis of which, the appellant was dismissed from service, cannot be relied upon.
11. Since there is no defect in the charge-sheet, an enquiry can be held afresh after the stage of the issuance of the charge-sheet and reply, it so desired, and then only the appellant would be entitled to back wages if he is found not guilty.
12. I, accordingly, partly accept the appeal, set aside the decision of the Labour Court and direct that the appellant be re-instated without back benefits. 1970 PLC 241 1963 PLC 651 1964 PLC 35 19$4 PLC 135