HABIB BANK LTD., KARACHI Versus ABDUL GHANI
DECISION
This is an appeal filed by Messrs Habib Bank Limited against an impugned order, dated 22‑3‑1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.V, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent, Abdul Ghani, directing his re‑instatement in service with full back benefits under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent claimed to have been a permanent employee of the appellant Bank and was working as an Assistant in the Foreign Exchange Branch and that one, Mr. Abdul Qadir was his officer‑in‑charge. He claimed that on 14‑12‑1980, he was issued a charge‑sheet alleging that he in connivance with Messrs M.J. Babar and the Officer‑in‑Charge fraudulently made some unauthoised entries in the Category Pass Book and misa, propriated the funds of the appellant Bank. He claimed that though making of such entries in the Category Pass Book was not his duty, yet he made certain entries at different times on the express instructions of Officer‑in‑Charge and thus he did not remember whether he made the entries for want of knowledge, hence, he was not involved into the alleged misconduct. He claimed that his reply to the charge‑sheet was not found satisfactory therefore, an improper and illegal enquiry was conducted against him in which he was neither afforded full opportunity to defend himself nor any alleged charge was directly proved against him. However, he was dismissed from service and so, he submitted his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969 before the learned Labour Court after compliance of the necessary legal and mandatory requirements.
3. The appellant Bank resisted the petition of respondent on a number of grounds that the respondent was involved in the criminal offence of the misappropriation of the appellant bank's funds, so, he was rightly proceeded with the domestic enquiry which was quite fair and impartial in which he was participated and as the charges were fully proved, therefore, he was rightly dismissed from service. Further, the case of the appellant was that in the presence of the appellant bank's own Service Rules, the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance 1968 were not applicable to the employment of the respondent, therefore, his grievance petition was also not legally maintainable which was liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties filed their affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined, except one, Mr.G.M. Qadri, who had expired during the proceedings of the case. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence the present appeal.
5. I have heard, Mr. Khalid Javed, the learned Advocate for the appellant bank and Mr.S.P. Lodhi, the learned representative on behalf of the respondent and have also carefully perused the entire record and proceedings of the case. At the very outset I would hold that the impugned order is well‑reasoned and I find nothing wrong with it. Admittedly, there is no evidence on record to directly prove the charge against the respondent that he was involved in any criminal offence of misappropriating the funds of the bank. It is the settled principle of Law the burden of proof of the allegations about I misappropriation, fraud, breach of rules, regulations and wilful damage to bank's reputation, against the respondent workmen, lies squarely upon the appellant Bank and in the discharge of this burden, the appellant Bank has miserably failed to do so. It was the duty of the appellant Bank to discharge its duty and not the respondent. There is no direct evidence to prove the guilt of the respondent as all o' the prosecution witnesses were either hearsay or formal. To prove a criminal offence, it is necessary that there should be a direct and specific evidence of without doubt. There is a fact that while refuting" the charges in his affidavit‑in‑evidence, the respondent had affirmed that the entries in the Category Pass Book were being made by him` on the instructions of the officer‑in‑charge, Licencing Department. The fact that he could not disclose the name of the person who had committed the fraud could not prove it conclusively that the respondent was involved in the fraud or shared the profits of the fraud. It is against this that the respondent was enquired in a closed room by the Vice President that if the respondent was also involved in the deal, the reply was in negative. On the other hand, there is a cleat and specific admission by the respondent that all the entries in the Category Pass Book were being subject to verification by various officials at different levels, therefore, only the respondent could not be choosen and picked up for victimization. In view of these factual circumstances and legal aspects of the case, I would hold that the dismissal of the respondent from service cannot be sustained hence, set aside. Therefore, the learned Labour Court was quite right in passing the impugned order.
6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. The respondent is directed to be reinstated in service with full back benefits forthwith. The amount of back benefits, already deposited by the appellant Bank in this Tribunal be immediately paid to him after proper verification.
A.E. /1095/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.