1993 PLP 714 (PLC(CS))

2. The appellant was a Conductor at the Orangi Nala Depot of the respondents. On 27‑7‑1988 he was detailed on duty on Bus No. 864‑

333. When the said bus had reached North Karachi Depot it was checked by a Special Squad headed by Inspector Muhammad Hanif Khan. It is alleged that they found 56 passengers, travelling from Cantonment Station without any ticket. The Cash Book was also checked and an excess amount of Rs.28 was found therein, and "all the closing TL‑6 were missing". The TT‑40 report was immediately filled up which also contained the reply and the signature of the appellant.

3. An enquiry was ordered in which some witnesses were examined and the statement of the appellant was also recorded. The latter had also examined a witness namely Ghulam Ali.

4. The enquiry report being adverse, the appellant came to be dismissed on 7‑11‑1990. He had given a grievance notice and receiving no reply had filed the petition wherein he was his own witness. Raja Muhammad Latif, one of the four members of the Checking Party, was a witness on behalf of the respondents.

5. The fact that checking had been carried out by the special Squad is not denied from any quarter. The stand adopted by the appellant is that a group consisting of 56 persons had entered the bus and were not willing to pay at the rate of Rs.4, as they should have, but were only offering Rs.175 instead. A heated exchange of words had followed, and they were threatening to break the glass panes of the bus and give a drubbing to their colleagues. This is what he had to say at the enquiry and also before the .Labour Court. He had also mentioned this in his statement in the TT‑40 form, which surprisingly he says, he was forced to write at the behest of the Checking Squad.

6. I don't think the bus fare is open to any bargaining and all the intending passengers know as to how much they have to pay fox a certain distance. Raja Muhammad Latif has totally denied this statement of the appellant, having been made when they had boarded the bus, and appears to have been put forward by way of embellishment. There is nothing to show that Raja Muhammad Latif, or for the matter of that, any member of the Checking Squad had been harbouring any grudge against the appellant.

7. The next contention raised is that the appellant had come to grief because he was 1.a Member of the KTC Workers' Union, the former CBA, and the complainants were under the influence of the KTC Employees' Union. He was being pressurised to break away from his Union and join the Employees' Union, the present CBA, and as he could not be coaxed or induced to change loyalties in spite of a persistent pressure of months between the end of the enquiry and the order, he was eliminated from his job maliciously.

8. The fact however remains that there is not a trace of any involvement of the appellant in the activities of the Union. Actually there is not even a faint glimmer of any agitational activities in the atmosphere or any indication of any pending elections or referendum. This question was also not put to Raja Muhammad Latif, who had appeared in the witness‑box. The suggestion is nothing beyond a figment of the appellant's imagination.

9. The enquiry was conducted, to my mind, in a fair and proper way. He was allowed opportunity to cross‑examine the witnesses at length. All the pages of the enquiry record are duly signed by him and no paper had been withheld or denied to him. He was also provided proper hearing at the time of show cause notice and later on before the order of dismissal was passed. So, nothing will turn on that either. It is true that he had sent an application to the District Manager against the Enquiry Officer, at some stage, by post, but there is hardly any serious allegation therein. It was just a stereotyped affair. The Enquiry Officer had not been examined but there are no serious allegations of any sort against his person and no prejudice, even remotely, is involved.

10. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Khan, learned counsel for the complainant referred to an admission made by Raja Muhammad Latif which pertained to a target system which had come into existence in the KTC according to which a certain minimum amount of collection has to be deposited by the Conductor every day. However, the witness was not sure whether it had come into vogue at the relevant moment. Be that as it may, it could not give a licence to the Conductors to deposit a certain fixed amount and keep the rest of money to themselves. The reticence of the appellant himself shows that it had not taken roots at the relevant moment.

11. I am therefore of the opinion that the case against the appellant has been fully established.

12. In the result I will affirm the impugned order and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2198/Lb.S Appeal dismissed,