1987 PLP 906 (PLC)

(iv) Enquiry was one sided. (v) The management had not produced the witnesses connected with the checking squad.

9. Finally the first report was not produced before the Enquiry Officer nor the tickets which was the subject‑matter of the charge.

10. In short, the contention of the conductor is that this is a clear case of victimization because he was a member of the trade union and was disapproved by the management.

11. Respondent District Manager whose name is not disclosed in the written statement has filed written statement through the legal advisors Mr. Gul Mohammad Soomro and Mr. Azmatullah Khan and supported the enquiry that 10 persons were found in the Express Bus without tickets and 25 rupees were used by the conductor. There was a fair and impartial enquiry. They have denied the charge of the illegal gratification or any allegation regarding the improper conduct of the proceedings to be taken as an exception by the conductor. R E A S 0 N S:

1. The Court has taken consistent view in number of cases that TT‑40 document is the important document for both the management and the conductor, for, they are provided printed form in the course of official business where every column explains that the version of the Inspector has been recorded and side by side, the explanation of the conductor will also be recorded what he has stated in verbatim, thereafter the District Manager is the highest authority for the conductors to pass any order what he finds fit in the circumstance.

2. Indeed the conductor has shown the application of his mind so promptly and at the place before the checking squad that Court has taken very deep view of this aspect in particular where what he writes in TT‑40 report: These are the words of higher significance and the Court recalls that the number of the KTC cases the Court has yet to find in TT‑40 document of such allegation.

3. It is with this aspect of the case, the Court has to take further care to ascertain the correctness of the charge whether the dismissal, resulting there from, was actuated by the background which is reflected by the conductor showing his state of mind there and then. In the course of human experience, it is very difficult of course, to write there and then, in the face of that party, which came to detect the revenue, therefore reference is to be had to the evidence recorded in this Labour Court, and the evidence recorded before the Enquiry Officer ‑and the evidence of the Enquiry Officer in particular to find out the accuracy of such allegation because both the parties remained in the very different situation, one is the superior of the rank‑like inspector and other is the conductor less than the post. These are the sensitive aspect to be considered on the every fact of the evidence for the detection of truth, at the stage of the enquiry. The entire proceedings of the enquiry report the Court has examined, centre around, about the tickets whether the statement of the Inspector has touched this aspect of the bribe, by denial before the Enquiry Officer or any question is also suggested in the cross questions and answers for the Court to have the appraisal of the evidence as a whole with the background, particularly, when the witness is not examined from the defence side or any independent passenger from the Inspector's side on the question of receiving favour or obliging the checking staff with monetary test.

4. The burden of proof therefore has become very heavy for both firstly, the checking staff has to discharge the burden of proof denying the allegation and then shifts on the conductor in view of TT‑40 document which has the impression of the words, "bribe written by the conductor in his own hand." 5.There is denial of the fact that no enquiry has been conducted by procedure. The management produced the witnesses. They were cross‑examined. Defence was also given the opportunity to produce defence. In the Labour Court also the same conductor has admitted that he appeared before the Enquiry Officer. Statements of Abdul Rehman, Subhe‑Sadiq and Abrar Hussain were recorded. He also cross‑examined them. He did not produce the defence.

6. Significant aspect also is to be seen that no question has been put by the Corporation's concerned officer for anything to explain about the fact of bribe in TT‑

40. If the fact has come on the record, the proper course of evidence is that such fact must be brought at least to clarify through the witness whether he admits or denies and Court should have the idea of the truth and falsehood for, the conductor has brought only the reply to the charge sheet as a part of the record.

7. The Court now comes to this aspect whether the 10 passengers had no tickets, the answer of the conductor is very simple. He has stated, that he had issued tickets but the passengers were not confronted, Checking Squad snatched the tickets from the rag.

8. The applicant Qaisar Hussain has said in the Labour Court in his cross‑examination that he did not give reply to the charge sheet but at the second place he has said that the management issued another letter for reply to the charge sheet. He gave the reply Ex: A/4.

9. The context of the reply statement A/4 is also very interesting. It starts with this explanation that "My report is baseless and based on dishonesty‑‑‑‑‑ Thereafter in the body of the reply, he has given out further statement, that the fact is that Inspector Abdul Rehman neither confronted him with the passengers nor verified whether the tickets were issued when the inspector found that his B purpose is not being served, no one will pay the bribs to him, he used his arbitrary powers‑‑‑‑

10. From this explanation of the conductor, his state of mind is reflected. He has not disowned this but also that he has produced the reply to the charge sheet.

11. After examining the very serious aspect of this matter it appears to the Court, that this reply seems to have been prepared with the highest ingunity, for the same man cannot write these words that his report is based on dishonesty. At the same time he speaks, of the explanation in different tone. This shows that second time calling of the reply is not free from suspicions and the Court is of the view that there is something wrong somewhere. No responsibility can be fixed of course, directly to his written explanation but the Court in the interest of justice after examining every aspect if finds that if conductor can write in TT‑40 report on the spot his explanation in TT‑40 report cannot be lightly brushed away with particular regard to the fact that the reply of the charge sheet also has further referred to that aspect of corruption but cautious step is taken who ever is done to exculpate responsibility. The Court is also further of the view that corruption charge is the most serious charge. Such question has not been found in the evidence of the Inspectors before the Enquiry Officer at least to deny, so that the Labour Court should have the proper appraisal of the evidence that what the allegation was made was rebutted and not the stereotype enquiry. The Court has also further taken inspiration from this sentence in the cross‑examination of the respondent District Manager Sardar Asad what he says: "Inspectors have also been removed from service due to dishonest dealings".

12. In the result the Court is taking very cautious view that no innocent man should be affected, for, if the Court finds, that there are flaws of considerable significance for the authorities, also to take note of this, that such allegations be handled by the independent I Enquiry Officer to give the confidence to the Labour Court, for the declaration of their right and for them to speak truth, even if the worker is guilty, so that the Labour Court should have idea, to tell him, whether the false allegation made against any person is the legal protection.

13. In the result the impugned order is set aside. No purpose will be served by fresh enquiry, but in future the enquiry should be conducted cautiously, on these points. The Court has also further been assisted that the passengers may not have been there after getting down from the bus to confirm the accuracy but in the face, of this charge of alleged corruption, the checking squad should have taken 2 witnesses to show that the conductor is wrong. His statement in TT‑40 is of taking the bribe is the matter of considerable indulgence. Application is allowed. M. Y. H. /950/Lb.S.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.