1995 PLP 175 (PLC)

6th to 12th February, 1987. In his reply to charge‑sheet ‑the Conductor stated that on some of the dates mentioned in the charge‑sheet he could not attend on account of curfew and disturbances due to which he was feeling very much disturbed himself, that his house had been demolished while on some dates his wife was undergoing delivery so he may be excused for absenting himself and in future he would try to be punctual. The enquiry was, thereafter held and he was given opportunity to cross‑examine the time‑keeper and other witnesses but he did not avail of the opportunity. He was found guilty and the second show‑cause notice was served on him alongwith the enquiry report. In the Report itself it is mentioned that he remained absent from his duty as detailed below: November, 1986 7‑11‑1986, 11‑11‑1986, and 14‑11‑1986. December, 1986 12‑12‑1986, 13‑12‑1986, 20‑12‑1986to 22‑11-1986, 28‑12‑1986, 29‑12‑1986, 31‑12‑

986. January, 1987 7‑1-1987, 9-1-1987, 11‑1‑1987, 13‑1‑1987, 18‑1‑1987,22‑1‑187 to 27‑1‑1987,30‑1‑1987 and 31‑1‑1987 February, 1987 That he was given chance to examine any witness or produce documentary proof but he. failed. He has signed the documents etc. exhibited in the enquiry. He was, thereafter, dismissed from service with effect from 11‑4‑1987 A.N. He submitted a grievance notice to the District Manager, K.T.C., dated 10‑6‑1987. He stated in the grievance notice that oh most of the dates curfew was imposed in Orangi Area and his house was demolished and his absence was due to unavoidable circumstances. He has made no mention of any application for leave having been made nor such application being rejected.

3. The learned counsel for the Conductor, Mr. Farid Gul Khan has argued that the absence of his client from duty was beyond his control as he was residing in Orangi and that he had not been given any opportunity to take part in enquiry proceedings nor was he given a personal hearing.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Azmatullah Khan, representing the Corporation, has emphasized the fact that Conductor resided in Nazimabad and not Orangi. All correspondence that he made with the Corporation bears his address of Nazimabad. He was served charge‑sheet at Nazimbad. Photostat copy of his National Identity Card, which has been produced, also shows his address to be at Nazimabad therefore his allegation that he was prevented from attending to his duties due to curfew and disturbances is merely an excuse. Regarding his allegation that he was not allowed to participate in the enquiry proceedings there is ample evidence that he was allowed sufficient opportunity to defend himself during the enquiry. He has sent his reply to the charge‑sheet and he has signed all the inquiry papers and that he was heard in person by the employer after service of second show‑cause notice.

5. I have gone through the record and I find that the conductor has all along shown Nazimabad to be his residential address. Even his grievance notice to the District Manager shows his address of Nazimabad. There is no evidence that during his absence in the months of December, 1986 and January and February, 1987 there was curfew and he has himself admitted that curfew was only imposed on "some" of the dates but he had further admitted that during his absence he made no application for leave and that he did not even telephone to inform his office of his inability to attend. His absence, therefore, appears to be wilful. The respondent was holding responsible post of Conductor but he took his job very lightly and attended when he pleased. This lack of discipline appears to be a curse in our country and nobody seems to work with the sense of duty and responsibility. I am, therefore, of the opinion that leniency should not be shown for such careless behaviour on the part of workers.

6. Under the circumstances, the appeal of the Karachi Road Transport Corporation is allowed and the order of dismissal of the respondent is maintained. H.B.T/2392/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.