1983 PLP 523 (PLC)

This appeal arise% from the decision dated I i th February, 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1, Lahore whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement was dismissed. The allegation against the appellant was that he while working as a booking Clerk at General Bus Stand, Lahore charged bus fare from 24 passengers at 5 per head for Kasur whereas the prescribed ;fare was Rs. 4/50 only. He was also alleged to have recovered Rs. 2 per head from 4 passen gers for Bus stop Siddue whereas the prescribed fare per head was Rs. 1/70. The defalcation was detected while bus No. 9961 was checked by Bashir Ahmad, Checker at Mozang Chungi. TT‑40 was issued to the appellant. ‑He was charge‑sheeted. Finding the reply to the charge‑sheet unsatisfactory an enquiry was held against him which culminated in his dismissal. In the enquiry the checker had appeared against the appellant and stated that during the checking at Mozang Chungi the above‑mentioned facts were found. He also stated that he had recorded the statement of the passengers and received their signatures and the signature of the conductor of the bus. The appellant had cross‑examined the checker during the enquiry but did not succeed in his eliciting any favourable material. Since the joint statement of some of the passengers from whom excessive fare had been recovered was produced in the enquiry the statement of the checker collaborated by the said statement. Before the enquiry officer and before the lower Court the appellant did not suggest any enmity with the checker. Much stress was laid before the learned lower Court on the point that the allegations made in the charge‑sheet did not amount to misconduct inasmuch as the fare was not misappropriated. The learned lower Court has said that by overcharging, the business of the respondent was adversely affected although the prescribed fare was deposited and only the amount received in excess was misappropriated. Another bus was also checked on the same date and the enquiry officer brought in his consideration the said fact also whereas no allegation in the charge‑sheet of overcharging in respect of the other bus was mentioned. The appellant brought this material in his statement and this was reason that the inquiry officer had discussed it. Babu Khan another checker had checked bus No. 6859 but since appellant was not charge‑sheeted in respect of that checking and overcharging, therefore, the appellant was not justified in bringing that material in his statement. According to Bashir Ahmad, Checker Rs. 13.20 were overcharged in all by the appellant and the appel lant by adding the amount which, according to Babu Khan, had been over charged by the appellant raised the amount to As.

26. The evidence of the enquiry officer is with regard to charge‑sheet. given to the appellant and not with regard to any other material. The order of dismissal also is based upon the allegations contained in the charge‑sheet. No doubt Mr. Bashir Ahmad did not check the case of the appellant but it was not necessary to prove the charge. Babu ‑Khan who had checked another bus and had found that appellant had overcharged some passengers of that bus also had checked the cash of the appellant but only Rs. 1/60 were found in excess. The appellant wants to take benefit of that report to show that he did not overcharge any passenger. The appellant had ample time after bus No. 9961 had left the Bus stand, to spend the money or to dispose of in some other manner. If cash had been checked at the time he had over charged the passengers and no excessive cash had been found of course the correctness of the allegation could have been doubted. The appellant before the lower Court stressed on the point that overcharging did no amount to misconduct but the learned Court, has rightly observed that although the fare was not misappropriated and only the excessive money charged from the passengers was misappropriated yet this act of the appellant adversely affected the business of the respondent and thus amounted to misconduct. The charge was brought there to the appellant and he was rightly dismissed. As a result of the discussion made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it.