Law: Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968

Section: VI,15(2),15(3)(i)

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

(a)    Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Order) Ordinance (VIof 1968)-------S.Os. 15(2) & 15(3)(i)---Charge of fraudulent transactions / embezzlement of funds in connivance with co-accused---Lack of direct, evidence of guilt--Admission of commission of offence by the co-accused solely and non-involvement of petitioner---Imposition of harsh penalty of removal from service---Quantum of punishment, determination of---Inquiry Officer found the petitioner to be guilty of negligence---Single Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) partially allowed the grievance petition and converted the penalty of removal from service into demotion of one step below, but the Full Bench of NIRC set aside the order of Single Bench of NIRC---Validity---Petitioner was neither directly responsible nor had committed any gross misconduct or negligence in respect of the allegations, whereas, the allegations and charges in the instant case had been duly accepted through a confessional statement by another employee of the bank against whom a criminal case was also registered---However, such aspect had been totally ignored while awarding the major punishment of removal from service, which, on the face of it, otherwise did not commensurate with the magnitude of the guilt and the role assigned to the petitioner---Neither in the charge sheet nor in the proceedings before the Disciplinary Cases Committee there was any direct charge of misconduct, fraud, embezzlement or even the connivance of petitioner with the co-accused, who had accepted his guilt---Single instance of negligence or neglect of work cannot bring the case within the mischief of 15(3)(i) of Ordinance----Case against the petitioner could not be considered to be one of fraud, forgery, or embezzlement; rather, at the most, it could be considered to be one of negligence--Major penalty awarded to the petitioner, i.e. "removal from service," was harsh and could not be awarded just on the allegation of negligence---Orders passed by the Single Bench and Full Bench of NIRC were set aside and the petitioner was reinstated into service with all back benefits from the date of her…