1986 PLP 290 (PLC)

‑‑‑ Domestic enquiry‑‑Bus conductor charged for misappropriation‑‑Fare realised but tickets not issued ‑‑Ticketless passengers claiming to have paid fare deposing so in presence of accused at time of checking‑‑ T.T.40 mentioning clearly that accused confronted with such passengers‑ Accused not stating that passengers were not inquired into about recovery of fare in his presence‑‑Examination of such passengers in domestic enquiry, held, not necessary‑‑Dismissal of accused based upon statement of checker, in circumstances, upheld. Shafiqul Islam for Appellant. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 21st September, 1985. The decision, dated 12‑11‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service without back benefits.

2. The allegations against the respondent were that when the bus conducted by him was checked at Ichhra Morre, 8 lady passengers who had got into the bus from Bhati Gate were delighting the bus after completing their journey who had paid fare of 50 Paisas each. When the persons present inside the bus were checked, four lady passengers who had boarded the bus from Bhati Gate for going to Ichhra Morre were present without tickets who had paid 50 Paisas each. There were six such passengers travelling between Bhati Gate to Ichhra Morre who had no tickets and the checker got realised by the respondent bus fare and un-punched tickets were received from the respondent. There were 14 lady passengers travelling from Rang Mahal to Wahdat Colony from whom the respondent had realised fare at 75 Paisas each but had not issued tickets. The respondent denied the allegations in reply to T.T. 40 saying that he had not realised fare from any without ticket passengers. So far as such passengers are concerned from whom the respondent had recovered the fare but did not issue tickets, the respondent was guilty of misappropriation of fare. So far as these passengers are concerned from whom no fare had been received, the case appears to be of inefficiency or due to rush he could not receive the fare and issue tickets. No doubt, none of the passengers was examined during the inquiry, nor their statements were recorded by the checker at the time of checking but the respondent was duly confronted with the said without ticket passengers who in his present deposed that they had paid the fare but tickets were not issued to them. In T.T.‑40 it is mentioned in so many clear words that the respondent was confronted with the passengers. In answer to the said report the respondent did not say that in his presence the passengers were not inquired into about the recovery of fare. Since the respondent was duly confronted with the passengers, recording of the statements of the said passengers or examining them in the inquiry was not necessary. The passengers not being in any manner under the control of the P.U.T.C. could not be forced and compelled to appear before the Inquiry Officer. So the respondent was, therefore, riot condemned unheard. This is true that the checker admitted the rush but this fact may help the respondent for not contacting the passengers for the recovery of fare and issuing of tickets, but there appears to .be no reason why he failed to issue tickets to such passengers from whom he had realised the fare. Since he realised the fare, it means that in spite of rush he got a chance to contact them. So while realising fare he could issue tickets also. It is clear that he did not issue tickets in order to misappropriate the fare recovered by him. The learned lower Court missed to see that the respondent was duly confronted with the passengers which fact he did not controvert in reply to T.T.‑

40. The B respondent, therefore, was rightly dismissed from service and was notice entitled to be re‑instated in service.

3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the order of dismissal of the respondent from his service is revived. A.E. Appeal accepted.