Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. FD‑237 of 1983, decided on 10th March, 1984:
‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑Grievance petition against dismissal for misconduct‑Bank cashier charged for encashing cheque without signatures of officer required under rules‑Rightly held guilty of misconduct‑Order of Labour Court accepting grievance petition, in circumstances, set aside by Appellate Tribunal.
M. S. Bokhari for Appellant.
Asghar Khadim for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 28th February, 1984.
The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 4th April, 1982 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. The allegations against the respondent for which he, after being charge‑sheeted and holding an enquiry against him, was dismissed were that he paid the cash of three such cheques that did not bear the signatures of the office by way of cancellation of the account‑holder's signature. They are Exhs. P. 3 and P. 4. Exh. P. 2 was one year old and yet the respondent paid its amount. Cheque Exh. P. 2 did not bear the signature of the office in token of supervision.
3. The learned lower Court accepted the plea that token system was prevailing in the bank and as the cheques bore token numbers, therefore, he was justified in encashing the disputed cheques. The learned Presiding Officer has quoted the evidence of the Enquiry Officer. He said that the cashier will be bound in accordance with rules to encash these cheques in spite of the defects if any due to act or omission on the part of some others. By saying so, R. W 1 did not mean to say that on account of the presence of token number, the cheques not bearing the signatures of the officer for cancellation of the accounts‑holders signatures, they can be encashed. In the answer quoted by the learned lower Court, it is not mentioned that on account of token system, signatures for cancellation of account holder's signatures are not necessary. He made it clear in answer to a further question which reads "the duty/privilege of the cashier to withhold a cheque due to defect, would not b‑‑ affected by token system". It is clear that in spite of token system the cashier can withhold a cheque due to defects. It has not been shown by the learned counsel for the respondent that token system is recognised by rules or that according to rules, if token number is given on a cheque, the cashier is bound to encash it even if it does not bear either the signatures of supervisor or cancella tion of account holder's signatures. According to rules, both kind of signatures are necessary and without any one or both of them, the cheque cannot be encashed. The respondent thus acted in violation of rules and committed misconduct. He was thus wrongly directed to be re‑instated in service.
4. As a result, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision, revive the dismissal order and dismiss the grievance petition of the respondent.
A. B. Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer