1984 PLP 1546 (PLC(CS))

Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Appellant. Asghar Mahmood for Respondent. Date of hearing: 11th August, 1982. This appeal arises from the decision, dated 4th October, 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.

2. The appellant was a conductor and the bus conducted by him was checked on 27th March, 1977. It was found that the appellant had recovered sixty paisa as fare from a lady passenger but had not issued ticket to her. Form T.T 40 was issued to him but he is alleged to have not given any reply. He was charge‑sheeted, reply to which was found unsatisfactory and an enquiry was held against him which culminated in his dismissal. The statement of the lady passenger was not recorded. Obviously the fare which is alleged to have been realised from the lady passenger was not recovered in the presence of the checking party, therefore, recording of the statement of the lady passenger, who is alleged to have stated that she bad paid the fare and ticket was not issued to tier, was necessary. This statement should have been examined by the appellant. Ordinarily, it is necessary to examine the passen ger concerned during the enquiry, but simply to save the passenger from being troubled to appear in the enquiry, no importance is attached to the fact that the passengers are not produced before the Enquiry Officer. But recording of the statement of the passenger concerned is necessary in order to afford an opportunity to the person under enquiry to examine the said passenger in defence during the enquiry. Since the statement of the lady passenger was not recorded, her address is not known, with the result that the opportunity to examine her in defence stands denied to the appellant. Punched ticket was issued and the cause of the prosecution was that although the appellant was asked to give un-punched ticket yet instead of doing so, he gave a punched ticket. A punched ticket is issued in routine by the conductor while giving ticket to the passenger but in cases where fare had been reco vered from a passenger but ticket had not been issued to him by the con ductor, un-punched ticket is got issued. The other thing which goes in favour of the appellant is that in the enquiry report it is mentioned that sixty paisas were recovered from the passenger by the checking party. If the appellant had recovered the fare, no further fare could have been recovered from the passenger. Since the checking party recovered sixty paisa as fare and delivered it to the appellant, it is apparent that the latter had neither issued ticket to the lady passenger, nor bad recovered any fare from her. It, therefore, appears that due to rush of passengers the appellant neither recovered the fare nor issued the ticket to the lady passenger and thus he did not commit any misappropriation or misconduct.

3. As a result of the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court and the order of dismissal, direct the reinstatement of the appellant in service. Since appellant was negligent in discharging his duties by having failed to recover the fare and to issue ticket, he is not entitled to back benefits. M. I. Appeal accepted.