Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. HYD‑249 of 1969, decided on 28th January 1970.

--‑Domestic enquiry ‑ Charge‑sheet Copy of charge‑sheet supplied to workman (Bus conductor) [Road Transport Corporation Case] allegedly not signed by District Manager‑Original charge‑sheet, containing signature of workman in token of receipt of charge‑sheet, however signed by District Manager‑Charge‑sheet copy given to workman in all respect same as signed by District Manager‑Such irregularity, in circumstances, held, cannot be given any weight in absence of any 'prejudice to workman.

---S. 37 (2) ‑Permission for dismissal ‑ [Road Transport Corporation Case] ‑ Bus conductor charged of misconduct under S. 7 (2) (a), (h) & (i) of Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961 for not issuing tickets after realising fare from passengers and misbehaving with Checking Party‑No suggestion chat members of Checking Party had any motive or ill‑will to implicate Bus conductor falsely‑Enquiry officer affording proper defence opportunity for cross‑examination and production of defence witnesses and thereafter finding Bus conductor guilty of charges levelled against him‑Industrial Court, in circum stances, held, rightly granted permission for dismissal.

A. Majeed for Appellant.

Mahboob Rizvi for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing: 28th January 1970.

This is an appeal against the order of the learned Chairman of the First West Pakistan Industrial Court, Karachi, dated 26th November 1969, whereby he accorded permission to the respondent to dismiss the appellant on the ground of misconduct. The facts giving rise to the appeal are these.

2. The appellant, who is a Conductor, was on duty on 22nd May 1968, when his bus was checked by Mr. Abdul Qayum, Traffic Assistant and two others. It was found that the appellant had not issued tickets to 14 persons. The Checking Party, therefore, prepared 14 tickets. It is said that the appellant tried to snatch the 14 tickets from the Traffics Assistant, Mr. Abdul Fateh, while he was giving serial numbers to those tickets. He also tried to snatch the R. P. T. Book from Mr. Abdul Qayum. The Appellant was asked to give his explanation, which was to be recorded in T. T. 40. He refused to give his explanation. He was given a charge‑sheet on 24th May 1968. He gave his explanation thereto, which was found unsatisfactory. An enquiry was held and he was found guilty of the charges under section 7 (2) (a), (h) and (i) of the Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961 (hereinafter called the Workers Ordinance). The Enquiry Officer found him guilty. As the appellant was an office‑bearer of the Union, the respondent applied for permission to the Court to dismiss him from service.

3. The learned Court recorded the evidence of Messrs S. M. Saqib, who was one of the Checking Party, and Arz Muhammad Abro, the Enquiry Officer, on behalf of the respondent and of the appellant. The learned Chairman came to the conclusion that the enquiry was fair and impartial and accorded Permission to the respondent to dismiss the appellant.

4. Mr. A. Majeed, the learned Representative for the appellant, very strenuously contended that the charge‑sheet which was served on the appellant, was not signed by the District Manager. He, therefore, contended that the proceeding based on an un‑signed charge‑sheet is bad in law. There is not much force in this contention. In the first place, the appellant did not produce the charge‑sheet, which was served on him and which he says was not signed by the District Manager, before the Industrial Court. He has no doubt produced the charge‑sheet, which leas not signed by the 'District Manager before the Tribunal. On the other hand; the case of the respondent was from the very beginning that the respondent had served the charge‑sheet, which was signed by the District Manager. 'Mr. Mahboob Rizvi, the learned Representative for the respondent, has produced a copy of the charge‑sheet before me, which was signed by the appellant on 25th May 1968. This charge‑sheet is also signed by the District Manager. It may be that the copy which the appellant has produced before me and which has not been signed by the District Manager was physically handed over to the appellant. The fact, however, remains that the charge‑sheet, which was served on the appellant, does bear the signature of the District Manager. In token of the receipt of the charge‑sheet, the appellant has affixed his signature thereon. If the copy that was given to the appellant was not signed by the District Manager it will not in any way affect the merit of the case. It was at best a mere irregularity which in the absence of any prejudice caused to the appellant, cannot be given any weight. It is not the case of the appellant's that the Management in any way improved the case from what is mentioned in the charge‑sheet, which the appellant has produced and is not signed by the District Manager. The charge sheet is in all respect the same as the charge‑sheet, which the appellant had signed.

5. In the next place, the learned Representative for the appellant contended that the copy of the R. P. T. had not been supplied to the appellant. It is true that the appellant had asked for a copy of R. P. T., but the same had not been supplied. The Management had permitted the appellant to inspect the R. P. T. He, however, did not avail of this offer. I do not think that the appellant could have done anything better, if he had received a copy of R, P. T., than by inspecting the same. In fact, he would have done ‑better by inspecting the R. P. T. than by receiving a copy of the same. If there was any alteration or forgery in the R. P. T., it would have not appeared in the copy but the same would have been obvious if the appellant had inspected the R., P. T.

6. It was next contended by Mr. Majeed, the learned Representative for the appellant, that the appellant was not given an opportunity to produce his defence witnesses. There is no force in this contention. The appellant wanted to produce only one witness, namely, Anwar and be was allowed to do so by the Enquiry Officer. There is nothing on the record o this case to suggest that the‑Enquiry Officer stopped the appellant from producing any other witness, which he wanted to produce.

7. Mr. Majeed also submitted that R. P. T. secured from the appellant had not been produced before the Court. It. however appears from the statement of Mr. Arz Muhammad Arbo before the learned Court that R. P. T. Book was produced during enquiry proceedings. The statement of Mr. Arz Muhammad Arbo, as to the production of the R. P. T. Book, in examination‑in‑chief has not been challenged in the cross examination. Only one question has been put in the cross‑examination that the appellant did mention before the Enquiry officer that he had complained to the District Manager through the Duty Clerk that his R. P. T. Book and T. T. 2, had been seized by the Checking. Party. At any rate; even if R. P. T. At Book had been produced before the learned Court, I do not know how it would have improved the case of the appellant.

8. I have gone through the enquiry proceedings produced before the learned Court. Messrs Abdul Qayum, and Abdul Fateh were examined on behalf of the prosecution. They formed the Checking Party. These two persons have been cross‑examined at length by the appellant. There is not a word in the cross‑examination of these persons to suggest that they had any ill‑will against the appellant, so as to implicate him falsely in the absence of any motive, which has not been suggested by the appellant, there is no reason to conclude that the Checking Party made out a false case against the appellant. The appellant gave his statement before the learned Court. He has not suggested anything, whatsoever, against the Enquiry Officer that he was not impartial in. holding the enquiry.

9. I am satisfied that the learned Chairman of the Industrial Court accorded permission to dismiss the appellant from service on good rounds. The appeal is dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.