1978 PLP 154 (PLC)

Yousaf Hussain Dilawari for Appellant. Nazir Ahmad Naz for Respondent. The respondent Muhammad Sadiq a Bus Conductor employed in L. O. S., Ichhra Depot, Lahore was wrongfully terminated on 18th April 1967 and he was ordered to be re‑instated with back benefits by the order dated 11th April 1973 of this Court.

2. On 18th December 1973 he was issued a charge‑sheet containing allegations to the effect that the bus being conducted by him was checked by Abdul Rehman Checker, on 14ih December 1973 and it was found that three passengers were travelling from District Court to R. A. Bazar without tickets. The checker received Rs. 1.50 fare from the said passengers and paid the same to the Conductor and demanded un-punched tickets from the Conductor but he gave punched tickets. The charge was denied by the respondent however, an enquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer found the respondent guilty of the charge. A show‑cause notice was served on the respondent. He replied to the bow‑cause notice. He was personally board and inflicted punishment of stoppage of increment for three months. On 13th September 1974 the respondent served a grievance notice on 12th November 1974 and subsequently on 4th December 1974 filed application under section 25:A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1069, against the appellant before Junior Labour Court No. 1, Lahore. He contended that the Enquiry Officer was partial. He failed to bring on record the documents, which the respondent had applied to be brought on record. He made interpretations in the enquiry record. The District Manager who awarded punishment also failed to con sider the explanation submitted by the respondent to the shoe‑cause notice.

3. The application was resisted by the appellant who pleaded, inter alia that the Enquiry Officer was impartial and the punishment was awarded to the respondent in accordance with Law after observing all the prescribed formalities.

4. Muhammad Saleem Junior Clerk and Muhammad Sadiq respondent appeared as respondent's witnesses before the learned lower Court. Abdul Rehman, Naseer Javed and Salah‑ud‑Din testified on behalf of the appellant before the said Court, The relevant documentary evidence, was also produced by the parties.

5. After considering the parties evidence the learned lower Court concluded by its detailed order dated 17th July 1975 that the respondent had challenged the integrity and impartiality of the Enquiry Officer, during the enquiry proceedings. He should not have insisted on completing the enquiry and that on facts the respondent had not committed any fraud and he could not have been awarded the punishment of stoppage of increment. Consequently the order of stoppage of increment was set aside and the respondent was directed to be restored to the original date of increment with resultant arrears.

6. The present appeal has been filed against the aforesaid order dated 17th July 1975 of learned Lower Court. Leaving aside the merits of the case the allegations against the respondent were that he had only failed to issue tickets to three passengers. There is no allegation of dishonesty or fraud against him inasmuch as he had not received any fare from them. His omission at the most amounts to carelessness and for such a lapse he could only be fined up to 3 paisas in the rupee of the wages payable to him in a month under Standing Order 15(1) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. His lapse did not amount to misconduct and therefore he could not legally be awarded the punishment of withholding of increment. This mean that the punishment awarded to the respondent in the under consideration case could not be legally awarded to him and on this short ground such a punishment deserved to be set aside.

7. In this view of the matter we find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed while the impugned order is upheld.