Case Details

Citation(s)
1978 SLG 169 1978 SLD 169 1978 SCMR 212
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 130 8 of 1977, decision dated: 20th November 1977.
DORAB PATEL AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ
Syed Muhammad Shahudul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate on-Record for Petitioner. Khawaja Muhammad Farooq. Advocate instructed by Akhtar Ali, Advocate on-Record for
Respondents

Raja JAVED AKHTAR

VS

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT UNITED BANK LTD. AND others

Law:

Section:

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)-- S. O. 15(4) Inquiry Procedure Natural justice, principles of-¬Petitioner workman, charged with absence from duty and embezzlement of mosey entrusted to him, participating in inquiry by cross-examining employer's witness and by examining himself Petitioner also signing a statement indicating his desire to produce no evidence-Petitioner not alleging to have not signed the statement or to have signed statement under duress, no rule of natural justice, held, violated in acting upon such inquiry Inquiry conducted in accordance with law relating to subject anti bold in fair and reasonable manner, no exception, held further, could be taken to orders of worker's dismissal from service based on such inquiry particularly when petitioner could not explain why he illegally kept monies belonging to respondent Bank for over six months. [Natural justice, principles of Industrial dispute]. ORDER DORAB PATEL, J. The petitioner was the cashier ors branch of a United Bank (the second respondent in this petition fort leave) in May 1974. The petitioner admits that he absented himself from duty without leave from 23rd May 1974 to 14th December 1974. He also admits that he had through this long period of more than six months kept with him a substantial sum of money belonging to the second respondent's customers. The second respondent, therefore, charge-sheeted the petitioner and appointed an Enquiry Officer to bold an enquiry against the petitioner's misconduct. The second respondent examined its Branch Manager who was cross-examined by the petitioner. The petitioner also gave evidence and was cross examined in tarsi by the second respondent. The petitioner then admits that he stated in writing that he did not wish to produce any further evidence, therefore we would pause to explain here that the petitioner's explanation of his absence from duty between May and December, 1974 was that he had learnt that his uncle had fallen ill and had, therefore, asked for leave but as leave was refused, he had abandoned his duties temporarily. Assuming only for the sake of argument that this explanation…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492