' AFTAB AHMED, (MEMBER)---Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in October, 1997 United Bank Limited introduced a Scheme of retrenchment of their employees on payment of certain benefits. In pursuance thereof a letter dated 10-10-1997 for retrenchment was issued to the appellant. Mr. Muhammad Taufiq, who was then an Officer Grade-III in the Bank's service. Para.5 of the said letter mentioned the following terms and conditions of retrenchment:- "As a goodwill gesture and in lieu of notice period, subject, however, to the conditions of eligibility specified in the Circular dated October 9, 1997, titled 'Retrenchment Scheme' it has been decided to pay you benefits of an amount equal to three months Basic Pay for each completed year of service or one-and-a-half months' Basis Pay for each remaining month of service, whichever is less, subject to a maximum of 90 months' Basic Pay, and benefits as specified in the aforesaid Circular.
Your dues and liabilities are being worked out and will be advised to you in due course of time."
2. As the appellant had been alleged absent without leave from the Bank accordingly in term of para.5 of the said letter a statement of charges was served on him on 3-11-1997 which reads as under:-- "SUB: STATEMENT OF CHARGES: ' It has been reported against you as under:--
(1) You have been absenting yourself without authorization or permission w,e,f, 15-2-1997 which amounts to misconduct.
(2) You are habitual absentee which also amounts to misconduct.
(3) You have been drawing your wages/salary for the above stated period of absence without actual performance of work, under duress intimidation coercion and threat of violence and other acts of gross indiscipline.
(4) You have withdrawn the following loans/facilities without providing proper securities and sanction advice, under duress intimidation coercion and threat of violence and other acts of gross indiscipline which also are acts of misconduct. {{TABLE}} ...House Bldg.Loan. 0/s. Rs,288,119 +Rs,17,790 Accrued up to 31-12-1996 . ...Transport Loan. 0/s.Rs,28,643 ...NISF S/Charges. 0/s.Rs,37,708 {{TABLE}} ' The above acts constitutes misconduct under U.B.L., Staff Service Rules, 1981.
' Since you have been retrenched from the employment of U.B.L., vide retrenchment letter, dated October 10, 1997, the relationship of employer and employee comes to an end. Therefore, no disciplinary action can, in law, be taken against you.
However, since it is provided in the Retrenchment Scheme Circular, dated October 9, 1997 that in cases where specified categories of misconduct are alleged or reported, the retrenched employee shall not be entitled to the benefits of the Retrenchment Scheme and shall be entitled to only the Net Pay of the period of notice of three months.
' You are hereby informed that if you wish to be considered for benefit of the Retrenchment Scheme, you may file an appeal before the President of Bank within 30 days of the date of this Statement of Charges.
' Please note if no appeal is received from you within the period specified above and in the manner stipulated above, you will not be entitled to the benefits of Retrenchment Scheme.
' The above is of course without prejudice to the rights of the Bank under the Civil and Criminal Laws of Pakistan."
3. The appellant as per terms of Retrenchment filed an appeal/reply to the said Statement of Charges with the President, United Bank Limited. The appeal was not accepted by the competent Authority and the appellant vide letter dated 16-6-1998 was informed that as per Retrenchment Circular dated 9-10-1997 he was not entitled to Golden Handshake Scheme benefit and that the competent Authority had approved substantive pay of 3 months in lieu of notice in addition to his normal dues. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant has now come in appeal before the Tribunal. The service appeal was filed on 21-8-1998 with the prayer that the impugned order denying the appellant the benefits under the Golden Handshake Scheme be declared illegal, without lawful authority and of no effect.
4. Arguing the case of the appellant Mr. Kanwar Mukhtar Ahmed, Advocate submitted that the benefit of the Scheme had been refused to the appellant on the ground of appellant's absence allegedly without permission; that the charge of absence had not been proved against the appellant in that there had been no inquiry and the Bank's Authorities had decided the matter without looking into the facts and circumstances advanced by the appellant in his reply dated 23- 11-1997. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant was entitled to all benefits of GHS.
5. Defending the Bank Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, Advocate submitted that it was specifically provided under the Scheme dated 9-10-1997 that the officers who had obtained unauthorized overdraft or who were absent without leave for a period exceeding 90 days or against whom disciplinary action in respect of any act of misconduct was pending, will not be entitled to the benefits under the Scheme. That since the appellant was absent from the Bank without leave for more than 90 days' statement of charges was served on him on 3-11-1997 and a detailed inquiry was conducted into the charges; keeping in view his reply; by Mr. U.D. Khan, AVP. The appellant appeared before the Enquiry Officer, almost admitted the charge of absence from the Bank without leave, though pleaded personal reasons. The Enquiry Officer after examining all the prose and cons of the case held the appellant guilty of misconduct of availing advances unauthorisedly and absence under the Bank Rules. It was in these circumstances that full benefits of the Scheme were not allowed to the appellant and as per conditions of eligibility of Retrenchment vide Circular dated 9-10-1997 allowed substantive pay for the period of notice as per rules.
6. We have carefully examined the arguments and perused the relevant papers. The record shows that there was an independent inquiry into the charges against the appellant by AVP Mr. U.K. Khan.
The appellant was duly associated with the inquiry, he appeared before the Enquiry Officer and admitted the charge of absence without permission. The statement of the appellant was read over by the representative of the Bank in Court and we have also examined it. We do not find anything to disagree with the Enquiry Officer. The charge of the absence without permission was duly proved. In these circumstances the appellant was not entitled to the benefits under the Scheme and was rightly paid the substantive pay for the notice period as per terms and conditions of Circular letter dated 9-10-1997. The appeals fails on merits and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Parties be informed.