1984 PLP 1409 (PLC(CS))

Appeal No. LHR‑704 of 1981, decided on 24th March, 1982. ‑‑-S. O. 15‑Bus conductor alleged to have issued one ticket for 12 passengers Charge of misappropriation/ misconduct not proved‑Reinstated in service with back benefits‑Orders upheld by Tribunal. Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar for Appellant. Date of hearing: 30th January, 1982. This appeal arises from the decision, dated 9th November, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated in service with full back benefits.

2. The allegation against the respondent was that he had charged Rs. 21 from 12 passengers, who had boarded the bus from Qainchee and wanted to go to flown Hall Bus Stop, Lahore, but issued only one ticket numbering 698582 for the said amount which was against the departmental rules. Since the act complained of was covered by Standing Order 15 (1) (ii) (a) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 it did not amount to mis conduct. The relevant clause reads as under: --‑ "disregard or disobedience of rules or orders." The finding of the Enquiry Officer, however, is quite different and is that although the respondent had charged Rs. 21 but had deposited Re. 1 only and misappropriated Rs.

20. The plea taken by the respondent was that not 12 but only one companion of the 12 "Huffaaz" had boarded the bus and he recovered only Re. 1 from him. He said that the 12 persons had luggage with them and since there was no capacity in the bus to carry the luggage he, therefore, bad asked th‑m to catch another bus, but one of them had suspended himself with the running bus, therefore, he allowed him to enter the bus and thus charged Re. i which was the usual fare. The respondent was charge‑sheeted and an enquiry was held against him on a complaint made by one of the persons, who wanted to travel in the bus. Their case was that they had actually travelled in the bus and had paid Rs. 21 but only one ticket was issued on which the amount written was doubtful. This is not denied that the fare at that time from Qainchee to Town Hall, Lahore was Re.

1. When the fare was Re. l and 12 persons had boarded the bus, the respondent would have charged Rs. 12 and not Rs. 21, so this falsifies the stand taken by the prosecution. On the other hand, the version of the respondent is believable that since only one person got into the bus and the others were disallowed by him and the fare being Re. 1 per bead, he charged only Re.

1. The learned lower Court therefore rightly held that no mis conduct was proved. The respondent was rightly reinstated in service with back benefits. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed in limine. M. I.