1978 PLP 54 (PLC)

Appeal No. 78 of 1974, decided on 27th March 1975

S. 25‑A‑Re‑instatement‑Workman (Employee of Punjab Road Transport Board) dismissed for misconduct on account of alleged fraud‑No charge‑sheet traceable from enquiry proceedings submitted before Junior Labour Court‑Copies of statements of witnesses not supplied nor second show‑cause notice served on workman before order of dismissal‑Circumstances showing that workman was prejudic ed in matter of fair enquiry and charge of misconduct could not be said to have been proved against him‑Order of Junior Labour Court directing re‑instatement of such workman upheld. Abdul Karim, Asstt. Traffic Manager for Appellant. Respondent in person This is an appeal preferred on behalf of the Managing Director, Punjab Road Transport Board, Lahore, against the order of the learned Junior Labour Court, Multan, dated 7th February, 1974, whereby Ghulam Shabir, Bus Conductor was re‑instated with back benefits in supersession of the order of his dismissal against the charge of misconduct. He was alleged to have defrauded the Management of Rs. 6.56 by allowing six passengers to travel in his bus clandestinely by issuing them wrong tickets. The defence of the respondent is that two passengers had quarelled with him over the due fare by paying him lesser amounts while in the meantime the checking party got into the bus and made it a fraud case against him. The respondent was directed to be re‑instated by the learned lower Court on the ground that no fair enquiry was conducted against him. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant record. The evidence on record bear out the conclusion reached in the impugned order. In the first instance no charge‑sheet could be trace out on the enquiry proceedings submitted in the trial Court which omission cannot be legally replaced by mere presumption. Besides, the fact could A not be controverted on behalf of the appellant Management rather it stood admitted in record through its letter No. 2401, dated 9th May, 1973 that the respondent was refused to be given the copies of the statements of the witnesses recorded at the spot of checking. The respondent denied to haves been given second show‑cause notice proceeding the order of dismissal. No such notice could be traced out on the enquiry proceedings as submitted before the trial Court. The matter does not rest here even the statement of Ghulam Akbar who checked the bus of the respondent could not be traced out from the said enquiry proceedings. The respondent produced Ghulam Hassan driver (P. W. 2) in the learned lower Court who supported his case against the case of the appellant. It is also pertinent to note that cash in pos session of the respondent was not checked at the time of checking by, which the fraud alleged against him could be better substantiated to show fraudulent over charge on his part. All these circumstances sufficiently show that the respondent was prejudiced in the matter of fair enquiry and the alleged misconduct could not be said to have been proved against him. The impugn ed order, therefore, being upheld the appeal is dismissed.