' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 29- 8-2001 rendered by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, in Writ Petition No,102 of 1996.
2. Facts in brief are that Muhammad Farooq Abid (respondent No,1 herein) was employed as a Cashier in Muslim Commercial Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as MCB), Lawa Branch, Tehsil Talagang, District Chakwal. On 9-8-1993 he was charge-sheeted, levelling the allegations of misappropriation of a sum of Rs,35,500. The charges were denied. An inquiry was held and respondent No,1 was found to be guilty. Vide order dated 13-11-1993, he was removed from service.
He filed Petition No,110 of 1993 under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969 which was resisted by the petitioner/MCB. After trial the learned Labour Court No,6, Rawalpindi, dismissed the same on 31-3- 1994.
3. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No,1 filed an appeal, which was allowed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), vide judgment dated 20-11-1995, resulting in reinstatement of the contesting respondent in service. However, the petitioner/MCB was directed to hold a fresh inquiry and matter of back benefits was made dependent upon the result of the said inquiry. Hence, this petition.
4. Raja Muhammad Akram, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitoner, inter alia, contended that inquiry proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law and settled principles of natural justice; that the Tribunal set aside the judgment passed by the Labour Court without pointing out material irregularity or illegality; and that the same judgment was affirmed by the learned High Court, which also is based on presumption and conjectures; that the matter was correctly dealt with by the Labour Court and in such-like cases departmental inquiry proceedings are not to be conducted like that of criminal cases. Particularly, when cross-examination had not been done, it should be presumed that statements are correct.
5. Hatiz S.A. Rehman, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for respondent No,1 vehemently controverted the arguments of the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner/MCB and submitted that Tribunal as well as the High Court had concurrently held that there are glaring infirmities in the inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer. Furthermore, if there was any confession of respondent No,1 and if the amount was deposited by him, both these facts were not mentioned in the charge-sheet nor the respondent was confronted by the Inquiry Officer, whereas in his reply of the charge-sheet respondent had denied the allegations in clear and unambiguous terms. The Labour Court did not consider the case in its proper perspective, and in appeal the judgment of the Labour Court was rightly set aside by the Tribunal, which stands affirmed by the High Court.
6. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties and have minutely examined/analysed the available record. Admittedly, in charge-sheet, which is at page 46 of the Paper Book, there is no mention of the alleged confession of the respondent. Moreover, it is also not mentioned in it that the amount was deposited by respondent No,1 himself in the bank.
Both these facts were not confronted with respondent No,1 by the Inquiry Officer while holding inquiry. Respondent No, 1 in his reply to the charge-sheet, which is at pages 52 to 56 of the Paper Book, had denied the allegations and had also denied to have filled in the pay-in-slip and his signatures on the alleged deposit slips. According to his reply, he had blamed Akhlaq Ahmad, husband, of Abida Begum, and stated that on that particular day Abida Begum was admitted in a hospital at Mianwali and she had not personally approached the bank for deposit, but her husband came there, and sat with Manager, that seal of the bank on the pay-in-slip was also affixed by the Manager, and that all this mischief was done by Akhlaq Ahmad with the connivance of the Manager of the Bank. Most important aspect of the matter is that when respondent No,1 had denied the signatures on the pay-in-slip and other relevant documents of the bank, because according to Inquiry Officer, in his report, he had stated that on visual observation he was convinced that the disputed pay-in-slip carried the signatures of respondent No,1 Such scrip was exhibited as R-8 on the file of the Labour Court. It was incumbent on the functionaries of the petitioner/MCB to have obtained the specific signatures of respondent No,1 and the signatures on the pay-in-slip and specified signatures should have been sent to the handwriting expert for his report to show as to whether disputed pay-in-slip actually carries the signatures of the respondent. The entire emphasis of the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner/MCB is that cross-examination was not done by respondent No,1, therefore, statements made therein shall be accepted. This contention of the learned Advocate Supreme Court is not tenable, because respondent No,1 had denied the allegations in his reply to the charge-sheet also. Nothing was mentioned about alleged confession and deposit made by, respondent No,1 in the charge-sheet also.
7. In our considered view, the inquiry was not conducted justly, fairly and in accordance with law.
The same is not based on the principles of enquiry, justice and fairplay the Tribunal, no doubt, allowed the appeal of respondent No,1 and set aside the order of the Labour Court. However, the Tribunal rightly allowed the petitioner/MCB to hold a fresh inquiry in the matter and that respondent No,1 was not exonerated from the charges and the petitioner/MCB has, however, been allowed to take suitable action against him, if charges in a fair inquiry are proved against him. It would be advantageous to refer the relevant paragraph of the judgment of the Tribunal, which reads as under:-- ".10. In view of the above discussion, I find it difficult to see eye-to-eye with the observations and the findings recorded by the learned Court below. I would set aside the impugned judgment announced on 31-3-1994, and would order immediate reinstatement of the accused official, without, of course, back benefits, entitlement of the accused to which should be determined at the end of a renewed enquiry, which the bank people will undertake, at the earliest, so that ends of justice are objectively served and all chances of victimization or an unfair treatment of the official, at the hands of the bank management, are eliminated. If in the aforesaid enquiry, impartially, honestly and exhaustively conducted, the erstwhile cashier is found to be actually at fault, he may adequately be punished and may even be ousted from service, if the rules so permit. Lesser penalty may also suffice. On being found to be innocent in the matter, he will be deemed to have honourably been reinstated in service, without any stigma. His reinstatement in service, instantly ordered, will then enure and he will also be awarded his seniority, as also all the back benefits."
8. The learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court had considered the entire case and with sound and cogent reasons dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner/MCB and upheld the order of the Tribunal. We do not find misreading or non-reading of the material evidence by the High. Court. The judgment is based on the law laid down by this Court, which does not call for any interference. Furthermore, the matter of public importance as contemplated under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is not made out.
9. For the above facts and reasons, the petition is dismissed and leave is declined.