1990 PLP 495 (PLC)

‑‑‑Dismissal for misconduct‑‑‑Embezzlement charge‑‑‑Bus conductor alleged to have realised fare without issuing tickets ‑‑‑Ticketless passengers detected by raiding checker‑‑‑Statements of such passengers not recorded at time of checking and accused not confronted with such passengers‑‑‑Mere hearsay statement of checker, held, would not be sufficient evidence to establish charge of embezzlement. Muhammad Saleem Khan for Appellant. Date of hearing: 8th June, 1987. This is an appeal emerging from the decision dated 30‑4‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.1, Lahore whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.

2. The allegation for which the respondent was proceeded against and was ultimately dismissed from service is that he had realised the fare from the five lady passengers but had not issued tickets to them. None of the passengers was examined during the enquiry. The statements of the passengers were not recorded at the time of checking also with the result that besides the hearsay evidence of the checkers, there was no evidence of the factum of recovery of the bus fare by the respondent. Needless to say that only the passengers can say whether the fare was recovered from them or not. The checkers can say only this much that the passengers were found without tickets. If the fare was paid, the checkers were not present at that time therefore evidence of checkers in this respect is however hearsay. If the statements of the passengers had been recorded at the time of checking and got signed by the respondent it could be said that in reality the passengers had informed the checkers that they have paid the fare. In the TT‑40 also it is not mentioned that the respondent was confronted with the without tickets passengers. The result is that there is no tangible evidence of the fact that the respondent had in reality realised bus fare from the passengers who were without tickets. So the charge of embezzlement was not established and the respondent, therefore, was rightly directed to be reinstated in service by the learned lower Court.

3. So far as back benefits are concerned, the appellant had asserted in his statement recorded by the learned lower Court that right from the date of dismissal from service, he remained jobless. No evidence in rebuttal was produced by the respondent on the point. So back benefits have also been rightly awarded to the respondent, by the learned lower Court

4. As a result of what has been said above the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. A.E./388/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.