Find a Lawyer

Application No. 86 of 1968, decided on 26th May 1971.

)----

-----S. 37‑‑Road Transport worker's case‑Bus conductor charge‑sheet ed for non‑issuance of ticket after having realized fare‑Charge not proved‑Mere act of misbehavior with checking party, do circum stances, held, not sufficient for dismissal ‑Application for permission to dismiss, in circumstances, refused but back wages not allowed.

Azmatullah Khan for Applicant.

Aley Muhammad for Respondent.

.‑On 7th May 1968, a checking party consisting of Station Superintendent S. M. Saqib and Traffic Assistant Ummaid Ali checked Bus No. 2125 at Tando Muhammad Khan. Respondent Muhammad Bux was the Con ductor and he did not issue tickets although he had realized the fare. Domestic enquiry was conducted against the respondent wherein Traffic Assistant Ummaid Ali was examined. The respon dent examined himself and his witness Noor Muhammad Shah. Enquiry Officer found the charges against the respondent as proved hence this application for permission to dismiss the respondent. Mr. Aley Muhammad appears for the respondent. His contentions are as follows:-

(a) During the domestic enquiry, the Traffic Assistant Ummaid Ali only was examined and he was biased against the respondent.

(b) The original tickets which are alleged to have been issued by the Checking Party have not been brought on record.

(c) The respondent had issued tickets to all the passengers and this may be verified by T. T. 2 Form.

Traffic Assistant Ummaid Ali was cross‑examined by the respondent to the enquiry proceedings and he did not allege any bias against him at that stage. Moreover, the witness Noor Muhammad Shah produced by the respondent says that the bus of the respondent was checked at Tando Muhammad Khan and that there was an altercation between the Checking Party and the Conductor. Again in this Court, Station Superintendent S. M. Saqib was also examined and he has clearly stated that the Conductor was carrying 11 passengers and he did not issue tickets to them although he had realized this fare.

It appears that the respondent had required the T. T. 2 Form to be produced at the stage of enquiry. In the reply to the charge‑sheet he has given the details of the passengers which boarded the bus enroute. The tickets which are alleged to have been issued by the Checking Party have not been produced. The charge of carrying passengers without issuing tickets to them, therefore, cannot be deemed to have been proved. So far as the charge of misbehaviour is concerned, it appears from the statement of the respondent also that there was an alternation between the respondent and the Checking Party, but for that, out right dismissal of the applicant will be harsh. I will, therefore, refuse to grant permission to dismiss the respondent and re‑instate him. In view of his misbehaviour, I refuse to grant him back benefits. This means that whatever allowances has been paid to the respondent, he will not be entitled to anything in addition to it. Decision accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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