1983 PLC 108

The appellant was cashier in United Bank Limited Gaggu Branch, District Vehari. He was dismissed on 18th April, 1979 , on the charges of embezzlement, negligence of duty and moral turpitude. After service of grievance notice, the appellant brought the grievance petition from the decision of which the present appeal arises. , , . ,

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has .argued that the charge sheet was not issued by the competent authority, who was respondent No. 1 but was issued by the group incharge, The charge‑sheet is Exh. R 4 and it shows that Mr. M. Akram Chaudhry, Group Incharge, issued the charge‑sheet. ' No objection was raised in the grievance petition to the' effect that the authority who issued the charge‑sheet was not competent. This is, however, admitted that the competent authority is respondent No. 1 but if this objection bad been raised, the respondents would have an opportunity to show that the group incharge had been authorised by the competent authority to issue the charge‑sheet. Now it is too late for the appellant to raise such an objection at the time of arguments in appeal.

3. The next point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that charge No. 3 does not amount to misconduct. The order calling for explanation referred to in charge No. 3 is Exh. R‑2. The explanation was called about the shortage of Rs. 7,456. Since the explanation per tained to 4 misconduct, the appellant was at liberty to give any reply, or to omit to give any reply and omission on his part does not amount to mis conduct. Learned counsel for the appellant says that since charge No. 3 did not amount to misconduct, Chan Pir shah's case applies and the Labour Court should have directed the re‑instatement of the appellant in service. I do not find any force in this argument. It is not necessary to prove all the charges. Where there are more than one charge, out of whom the charges calling upon a major penalty are established and one charge is not proved or does not amount to misconduct, the report of the Enquiry Officer finding the workman concerned guilty of all the charges, does not adversely affect the mind of the competent authority. Chargers Nos. 1 and 2 were very grievous Charge No. I was of embezzlement of Rs. 7,456 and charge No. 2 pertains to moral turpitude. Charge No. 4 was also a misconduct for remaining absent without leave. Since these three charges had been proved, they were sufficient to prescribe the punishment of dismissal. Even if charge No. 3 had amounted to misconduct, it would have been a minor type of misconduct and thus its proof or non‑proof would not have been very much material. In cases where the charges of grievous misconduct are not proved and one or few charges of minor misconduct are proved, it can be said that if the Enquiry Officer had not found the incumbent guilty of all the charges, the com petent authority may have prescribed a lesser penalty. But as mentioned above, in the present case grievous charges of misconduct were proved, the mind of the competent authority was not prejudiced by the finding of the Enquiry Officer that charge No. 3 amounted to misconduct and that it had been proved.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has not found any fault with the enquiry or in the observations made by the learned Presiding Officer. There is so no scope to interfere with the impugned decision of the learn ed lower Court.

5. As a result of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it in limine.

Appeal dismissed.