1971 PLP 253 (PLC)

Azmatullah Khan for Applicant. DECISION AGHA IMDADALLY (CHAIRMAN).‑This application under section 47(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 has been filed by District Manager, Government Transport Service, Hyderabad and. the respondent is Ahmad Ali, who is a Con ductor employed under the applicant District Manager in the service in his control.

2. The facts shown in the application are‑ that the respondent is said to be an office‑bearer of the G. T. S. Employees Association (Regd.), Hyderabad and certain Industrial Disputes are pending for adjudication and determination in this Court. On 22nd February 1970 while the respondent was on duty as Conductor in G. T. S. Bus No. 6213 on Society‑T. B, Sanitorium route his bus was checked at Rani Bagh by Mr. Muhammad Khan, Traffic Assistant. On such surprise checking 13 passengers were found travelling without tickets. It is further alleged that again on 24th June 1970 while the respondent was on duty as Conductor in 'G. T. S. Bus No. 6281 on Hyderabad Jamshoro route his bus was checked at A‑One Hotel, Hyderabad by Mr. Abdul Waheed Khan, Traffic Assistant and on such surprise checking the following irregularities were found which, it is alleged, had constituted misconduct in the following manners (i) That in T. L. 6 the column of Re. 0.45 left blank up to A‑One Hotel, Hyderabad with dishonest intention. (ii) He had not calculated the total passengers in proper column of T. L. 6. (iii) On seeing the checking‑party the respondent issued 10 tickets of Re. 0‑45 (paisas forty‑five) given to passengers but in haste he punched these tickets in Up side of the tickets instead of Down side.

3. The‑ respondent was subsequently charge‑sheeted in both the cases separately on such reports of his misconduct by dishonesty and was asked to submit his explanation which he did but it was found unsatisfactory. Domestic enquiries were then, as ordered by the applicant, held against the respondent who was afforded full opportunity to defend himself. The Enquiry Officer after the conclusion of the enquiries gave a report adverse to the respondent finding him guilty of the misconduct, on the facts shown above, as this term is defined in section 7(2) (b) of Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961. Thereafter the respondent was served show‑cause notices and he was also heard in person by the applicant. According to the applicant, as is mentioned in the application the charges of misconduct aforesaid are proved against the respondent and the applicant intends to dismiss the later from service hence he seeks permission to do so by the present application.

4. When the application was filed summons were issued to the respondent by registered post A/D and the acknowledgement postal receipt has been received by this Court which clearly shows that the respondent has been duly served but on the date of hearing fixed for the application he did not put in any appearance hence he was placed ex parte and the applicant was allowed to furnish evidence in support of ex parte proof of his case. Consequently an affidavit has been field by Mr. Azmatullah Khan, who is Station Superintendent (Legal Representative) in Government Transport Service, Hyderabad, and he has sworn this affidavit on oath giving the same facts constituting the misconduct alleged against the respondent as are detailed already above. Since there is no evidence in rebuttal this affidavit has to be accepted as correct and it duly proves the facts on which the present application rests. Thus it is amply clear on record that the respondent has been found guilty of misconduct by the applicant District Manager who seeks permission to dismiss him from service by this application. This request obviously under the circumstances set out above is reasonable and genuine as such it is granted and permission is hereby accorded to the applicant District Manager to proceed to take disciplinary action against the respondent entailing even his dismissal if so justified by the relevant law on the subject. Amounced in open Court.