Find a Lawyer

Appeal No.SG‑552 of 1984, decided on 16th February, 1985.

‑‑‑ Dismissal or removal from service on account of misappropriation‑ Penalty may be imposed in clear cut cases of misappropriation‑‑Driver charged for misappropriation of diesel‑‑Diesel consumption alleged as excessive‑‑No evidence of pilferage‑‑Excessive consumption might sometimes take., place due to unforeseen incidents and sometimes due to poor quality of fuel for adulteration and usually due to carelessness of Drivers‑‑Extreme, penalty of removal from service, in circumstances, held, not called for‑‑Order of Labour Court awarding re‑instatement w bout back benefits upheld by Appellate Tribunal‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25‑A & 38(3).

Muhammad Aslam Kalyar for Appellant.

Malik Ghulam Rasool for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 2nd February, 1985.

The decision, dated 3‑9‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad has been challenged whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service without back benefits. The respondent has brought cross‑objections for claiming tack benefits. The appeal and the cross‑objections are being disposed of together.

2. The allegations for which the respondent was dismissed from service were that diesel consumption was excessive on 25‑3‑1982 by 39 litres and on 27‑3‑1982 by 41 litres. The plea taken by the respondent for the excess consumption on 27‑3‑1982 was that the bus had gone out of order and was dragged by another bus upto Sargodha and for 25‑3‑1982 was that a bridge was out of order, therefore, the bus remained started the whole night. No such pleas were taken in reply to the charge‑sheet. If the bus was dragged by another bus, then no diesel was consumed in the bus, so no question of excessive consumption of diesel could arise.

3. Sometime unforeseen incidents take place and sometime the quality of fuel is poor due to adulteration, which results in excess consumption of fuel. Usually due to the carelessness of the driver excess fuel is consumed in the happening of unforeseen incidents, so extreme penalty of removal from service is not called for. In clear cut case of misappropriation the punishment of dismissal or removal from service A may be imposed. Since it cannot be definitely said that pilferage of fuel was made, the respondent was rightly directed to be re‑instated in service. Since it appears that due to the carelessness of the respondent, the appellant suffered loss of wastage of fuel, the respondent is not entitled to back benefits.

4. As a result, the appeal as well as the cross‑objections are dismissed.

A. E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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