Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑131 of 1981/Pb., decided on 17^th January, 1983.

----Misconduct‑Embezzlement‑Collaboration‑There can be no evidence of collaboration‑Can be inferred from circumstances Road Transport Board checker charged for embezzlement in collaboration with conductor, who‑ allegedly entered less fare than actually charged and entries m T. T.‑2 statement interpolated‑No evidence that interpolation exited when statement checked by accused‑No evidence that after checking statement retained by accused‑Conclusion of Labour Court that there was no evidence to show that accused had collaborated with conductor, in circum stances, held, in correct‑Charge however, held, not proved and re‑instatement awarded by Labour Court in circumstances upheld by Appellate Tribunal‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 37.

Syed Hadi Hasan for Appellant.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 11th December, 1982

In this appeal the decision, dated 7th February, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be re‑instated in service without back benefits, has been challenged.

2. The allegation against the respondent was that he while checking T. T. 2s of Khizer Hayat, conductor, for the period from 16th November, 1977 to 21st December, 1977 made embezzlement of Rs. 412 in collabora tion with the conductor. 1n T. T. 2 statements the number of passengers alongwith the places between which they used to travel and the fare charged from them are entered. The statement is checked by the state ment checker and the income is deposited by the conductor with the cashier accordingly. The conductor is alleged to have entered less fare than was actually recovered and since the respondent passed these statements, it was concluded that he had collaborated with the conductor. The entries of T. T. 2s. with regard to the fare are alleged to have been interpolated.

3. There is no evidence that the interpolation already existed an the amounts of fare tempered with when the statements were checked b the respondent. It was not shown that after checking, the statement were retained by the respondent. If they were returned to the conductor, the latter had ample opportunity to change the entries afterwards. Rule should be that after checking is done, the statements should not b returned to the conductors but be sent directly to cashier, should in n circumstances go back to the conductor. However, the learned lower Court has wrongly held that no evidence was produced to show that the respondent has collaborated with the conductor. There cannot be any evidence of collaboration and only from circumstances it can be inferred if the statement checker had participated in the embezzlement. The case was not proved against the respondent and he was rightly directed to re‑instated in service.

4. As a result of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it.

A. ta. Appeal 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.