Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. HYD‑97 of 1984, heard on 15th April, 1985.

‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑Grievance petition against dismissal for mis conduct‑Bank employee (Cashier) charged of connivance with Manager in acts of misappropriation and other irregularities--Charges framed on basis of inspection report of Inspection and Audit cell of the Bank‑Grievance petition dismissed by ,Labour Court --Appellate Tribunal on appraisal of evidence on record coming to conclusion that no charge stood established‑Impugned dismissal order set aside awarding all back benefits‑Tribunal further observ ing (i) Bank Officers should be vigilant to check transactions minutely and not to send Inspection team after one year when any mischief if at all, is committed (ii) Management should be strict and super vising powers should be so tight that not a single transaction should go undetected.

Wasiullah Qureshi for Appellants.

Bashir Awan for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 15th April, 1985.

This appeal arises from the facts of the impugned order, dated 31st March, 1984, passed by the Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad. The Labour Court dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant filed under section 25‑A. I.R‑O.‑ 1969.

2. The facts are that he was a permanent employee of the respondent bank as a Cashier. He was posted at Dero Nare Branch of Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd., till 1st September, 1981. Thereafter he was transferred to Ghulam Nabi Shah Branch. The respondents served a charge sheet as tat as on 23rd September, 1982, on the appellant when he stood transferred from Dero Naro Branch for more than one year. The said charges were based on the inspection report of the Inspection and Audit Cell, Mirpurkhas. The inspection of Dero Naro Branch was held on 14th September, 1982. The appellant submitted reply to the charge‑sheet denying the charges in toto. The enquiry was held on 7th December, 1982 by Ramzan Ahmed Khan. Then, after five Months, the appellant was dismissed by an order on 14th May, 1983. The appellant preferred a departmental appeal but the appeal was not heard. Hence, the grievance notice was given to the respondents bank and the same was not answered. The grievance petition was filed thereafter.

3. In the reply statement the stand taken by the respondent bank was that the appellant fraudulently transacted the cash payment in collusion with the Branch Manager and caused loss to the respondent bank.

4. The learned Labour Court examined the appellant who was cross -examined and one Muhammad Umer on behalf of the respondent bank who was also cross‑examined by the appellant's Advocate.

5. The appeal was argued by th6 learned counsel Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Bashir Awan Advocate for the respondent bank.

6. The learned counsel of the appellant read out the charge‑sheet. dated 23rd September, 1982 and he discussed every charge minutely before this Tribunal and pointed out that nothing is proved against the appellant specifically to establish the charge of misappropriation of the amounts. The collusion with the Bank Manager, Mr. Shafi Muhammad, is also not proved. The charge‑sheet is as under :‑

"(1) That while you were Cashier at Dhoronaro branch, you have directly/indirectly connived with Mr. Shafi Muhammad Ex- Manager to commit misappropriation at the branch.

(2) That you have jointly signed all the vouchers of Bogus Agricultural Production Loan, un‑authorized withdrawals from customers accounts on cash Debit Vouchers (SF‑23) to misappropriate Bank Funds.

(3) That you made payments (as cashier) on Cash Debit Vouchers (SF‑23) without obtaining signatures of the recipients on the back of the vouchers.

(4) That one Muhammad Suleman was maintaining CD A/c No. 26. He was domestic servant of Shafi Muhammad Ex‑Manager who was operating the account. The account mostly remained over drawn with heavy transactions. Cheques of this Account were filled in by Mr. Shafi Muhammad and paid in cash by you as Cashier.

(5) That you had knowledge of Pocket Banking of Mr. Shafi Muhammad Ex‑Manager, but you did not disclose the facts to your superiors and assisted him to mis-appropriate Bank s Public Funds.

7, As regards the first charge, namely, that the appellant connived the acts of Mr. Shafi Muhammad. the Manager to commit misappropria tion at the branch, no positive evidence is adduced to prove how the appellant connived the manager who is now facing trial before Special Judge to misappropriate the money. Specific instances of misappropriation are not given by the respondent bank and as such this is a mere surmise and presumption.

8. As regards the charge Nos. 2 to 4, the vouchers (S. F. 23) were seen by this Tribunal and for instance the voucher at Annexure 50 is explained by the learned counsel. The Annexure 50 relates to the advance ment of Rs. 30,000 to a party whose Account No. 146 is written in the Column of Debit. It means the Party is known whose account is inserted in the voucher. The cheque they received is numbered as 461718 is also written on the voucher. The objection of the Inspection Party was that this amount was not given to the party concerned. Now the learned counsel urges that the amount did not go to the proper party whose cheque number and account number are both available, in the voucher. There is no positive evidence to show that this amount was misappropriated. Although the counter‑signature of the appellant is on the voucher but it is not proved that this amount is not given to the proper party whose account number is available and whose cheque is also available. The only conclusion which can be drawn from this voucher is that the party received the amount. The learned counsel for the respondent bank, Mr. Bashir Awan failed to explain as to how the misappropriation is spelt out from this voucher. There is no evidence on record to show that this amount or similar amounts were misappropriated. If there is any other trick, it is not explained by the respondents' counsel.

9. Then, the charge‑sheet further recites other vouchers which do not bear party's signatures on the back of voucher. This is also similar case as explained above. The signature of party is not obtained only because his account number and the cheque number are given in the voucher. In the cross‑examination of witness Muhammad Umer of the respondent Bank, it occurs "it is correct that the transfer vouchers are not to be signed by the party concerned." Therefore, the signatures of the parties are not necessary.

10. The learned counsel, Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi has further argued that Muhammad Suleman was a domestic servant of Shafi Muhammad. It is not proved that Muhammad Suleman was the domestic servant of Shafi Muhammad and the fact is not connected with the present appellant. Whatever transaction which took place were of the similar nature as explai ned above. There should be a positive evidence that the present appellant had something to do with these transactions.

11. As regards charge No. 5, which relates to Pocket banking being conducted by Shafi Muhammad, Ex‑Manager. The charge against the present appellant is that he did not disclose this fact of 'Pocket banking to the superior officers. It is argued by the learned counsel, that how he could know that the Pocket banking is carried out by the Manager and the entire responsibility is of the Manager and not of the appellant.

12. The charge‑sheet, every item of it, is discussed and argued by the learned counsel and I find that nothing worth‑while is proved against the appellant. The evidence on record is that of the appellant himself and Muhammad Umer, the witness of the respondent bank. I have read the evidence and I am not able to make out that any charge is proved against the appellant. This and similar matters occur in the banking organizations when there is no strict supervision and day to day by the Senior Officers. The Bank's Officers should be vigilant the transactions minutely and not to send Inspection team after one when the mischief, if at all, is committed. In order to bring home guilt of the appellant, it was necessary to prove in the voucher that number was a bogus account. number and the cheque was also a cheque. There is no evidence on this point at all and the appellant be held responsible for the acts of Shafi Muhammad. So far the case appellant is concerned, he appears on the face of it to be absolved these charges and his dismissal was not warranted, and I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and reinstate the appellant in respondent bank with all the back benefits forthwith.

13. Before parting with the papers, I may observe that the management should be strict and the supervising powers should be tight that not a single transaction should go undetected by the . dent Bank.

A.E

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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