1988 PLP 823 (PLC(CS))

Ii at The appeal captioned above challenges the decision dated 10-11-1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant has been dismissed.

2. The allegation for which the appellant was dismissed from service was that while the bus conducted by him was checked on 30-10-1985, five passengers were found travelling between Kabirwala and Khanewal from whom the appellant had recovered Rs.8.75 but had not issued tickets to them. The other allegation is that one passenger was found travelling without ticket from Multan to Sahiwal from whom Rs.20 had been recovered by the appellant. The plea taken by the appellant in reply to the charge-sheet was that the five passengers were claiming to be students and wanted to pay Paisa 25 only each which he had not accepted and that the checking staff without recovering the fare from them issued tickets. Regarding the sixth passenger his reply was that he was policeman in proper uniform and the checking staff after recovering fare from him had issued a ticket. These pleas were not taken by the appellant in reply to TT-40. It is, therefore, clear that the pleas taken in answer to the charge-sheet were afterthought. In answer to TT-40 he had contended that no passenger in the bus was without ticket and that after recovering fare from the passengers tickets were issued by the checking staff. The reply is not happily worded but the appellant meant to say that he had not recovered fare from any without ticket passenger and that the staff had issued tickets to such passengers after realising fare from them. In reality there is no evidence of the fact that the appellant had realised fare from any passenger and had not issued tickets and thus had embezzled the amount. One member of the checking staff was examined during the inquiry. Needless to say that the checking staff inquires from, the without ticket passengers if they had paid the fare or not and only the passengers can give information to them in this respect. Since usually the passengers are not produced in the inquiry, therefore, it is necessary for the checking staff to record what is passenger actually states at the time of checking so that the said statement recorded in the presence of the conductor concerned may be produced as evidence in the inquiry. Without examining the without ticket passengers in the inquiry or without recording their statements at the spot, the evidence of the checking staff is hearsay and thus cannot be relied upon. In the present case, no without ticket passenger who may have given information to the checking staff that he had paid the fare but ticket had not been issued to him was examined at the inquiry nor his statement was recorded at the time of checking. Usually it is argued that the passengers are not willing to sign their statements, therefore, their statements are not recorded. This is not believable. Whatever information a passenger gives, it can be reduced into writing and he can be asked to sign it. If he refuses to sign, the fare may be recovered from him. If this is done, to avoid payment of double fare, they would be willing to sign the statements.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that since the appellant had put his signatures on the note given by the checker on TT-2, this is sufficient evidence of the fact that the appellant had realised fare from the without ticket passengers. The member of the checking staff who gave note on TT-2 was not examined. R.W.1 said that the TT-2 was not bearing his signatures. So this kind of evidence too is wanting, even if for the sake of arguments it B be said that by proving the signatures of the Conductor concerned on TT-2 the offence can be brought home to him.

4. Learned lower Court failed to advert to the above-mentioned circumstances of the case and thus fell in error in finding that the offence had been duly proved against the appellant.

5. So far as back benefits are concerned, it has not been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is entitled to it. Apart from it, the appellant did not urge in his statement made before the learned lower Court that right from the date of his dismissal from service, he was jobless.

6. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the order of dismissal and the decision of the learned lower Court, the appellant is directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits. A.E./524/Lb.P Appeal accepted.