Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. JM‑483 of 1984, decided on 7th November, 1984.

‑‑‑Domestic enquiry‑‑Ex parte‑‑Bank cashier charged for mis appropriation‑‑Not participating in enquiry‑‑Plea that application for transfer of change of place of enquiry and Enquiry Officer made but returned by management‑‑Such application not produced before Labour Court‑‑Evidence on record fully proving charge‑‑Order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition against penalty of dismissal from service based upon findings of enquiry, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25‑A 38(3).

Ch. Sadiq Muhammad Warraich for Appellant.

Dates of hearing: 29th and 30th October, 1984.

In this appeal the decision, dated 8‑8‑1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.6, Rawalpindi has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service was dismissed.

2. The appellant was a cashier in Dina Branch. On the allegation of misappropriation of funds deposited by the consumers of electricity supplied by WAPDA, the appellant was duly charge‑sheeted. Service of enquiry notice Exh. R‑1 is admitted. The appellant did not join the enquiry, which, therefore, was held ex parte. It is argued that the appellant had requested for the change of place of enquiry and the Enquiry Officer but the application was not entertained, so he could not join the enquiry. If application had been returned, the same should have been sent by registered post and the postal receipt retained to be produced before the Court. The plea thus is wrong. So there was no justification for the appellant for not participating in the enquiry. I have gone through the enquiry proceedings. The customers were examined who deposed that they had delivered the amounts of bills to the appellant who issued the receipts but in the bills of the next month the amounts of those bills were added, therefore, they complained to the Manager. The appellant paid the amounts misappropriated by him. This fact further confirms the misappropriation.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the defence version set up in reply to charge‑sheet was not considered by the Enquiry Officer, so the appellant was prejudiced. The defence version was that the appellant was on leave on the days the misappropriated amounts are alleged to have been received by him. This is true that none of he witnesses examined during the enquiry stated that the appellant did not apply for leave during the days he received the misappropriated amounts but there is overwhelming evidence on the record that the appellant did receive the amounts of the electricity bills and issued receipts with his own signatures but did not enter the amounts in scroll of WAPDA. Two bills were such the amounts of which were received by the appellant after he had been transferred from the seat of cashier and he forged the signatures of his successor on the receipts. This fact has been deposed by Mr. Haroon‑ur‑Rashid, who succeeded the appellant on the post of cashier. The persons who had paid the amounts of electricity bills were also examined and they supported the prosecution case. Even if some accepted leave applications are on the record, they make no difference because in spite of taking leave, the appellant may have attended to his duties. Since the persons who paid the amounts to the appellant definitely said that they had delivered the money to the appellant, the receipt of the amounts of bills stands proved.

4. So the charge was duly proved against the appellant. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed, in limine.

A. E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.