Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑173 of 1983, heard on 26th March, 1985.

----Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑Grievance petition against dismissal for misconduct‑ Inspector of Transport Corporation alleged to have received bribe from Bus Conductor‑Conductor though important witness not examined either in domestic enquiry or before Labour Court‑Appellate Tribunal, in circumstances, awarding reinstatement without any order regarding back benefits.

Yousuf Khan for Appellant.

Gul Muhammad Soomro for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 26th March, 1985,

This appeal is directed against the order of 1st Sind Labour Court at Karachi, who by his order, dated 28th April, 1983 dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant.

2. Briefly the facts that give rise to the appeal are that the appellant worked as Inspector with the respondent establishment. It was urged that on 14th May, 1981 the appellant received Rs. 4 as a bribe from the Conductor of Bus No. 802/8/155. That transaction was detected by Assistant Traffic Manager, Mansabad. Hence, a charge‑sheet was served on the appellant. The enquiry was ordered and on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the respondents reverted the appellant to the post of Traffic Assistant.

3. The appellant's case is that the allegations levelled against him were false and that he had previous enmity with Assistant Traffic Manager, Mansaf Dad who involved him falsely.

4. Appellant sent a grievance notice to the respondent on 27th December, 1981 and its reply was received on 4th January, 1982. A grievance petition was filed. In the reply statement, the respondents maintained that the allegation against the appellant was proved by an independent enquiry, hence, the punishment was adequate and proper.

5. In the evidence the appellant filed his affidavit. Ali Ahmed Siddiqui, respondent No. I filed an affidavit in evidence. The Advocates of appellant and the respondents were heard by me.

6. The plea taken by the appellant was that the concerned conductor had taken Rs. 10 from him as loan earlier and at the time of incident he returned that loan and he was unnecessarily involved. In this respect he relies on Annexure 'B' which is the reply to the charge‑sheet. According to this reply, the loan was being returned by the conductor and while the conductor was counting the amount, the appellant was caught.

7. I find that in the domestic enquiry, the conductor was not examined as the conductor was the most important witness in the entire proceedings. Even during the evidence in the Labour Court the conductor was not examined. Conductor was the only important witness to bear testimony that in fact the appellant accepted Rs. 4 as Bhatta/bribe. This factum is not proved since the conductor himself was omitted to be examined during the enquiry or during the evidence led in the Labour Court, hence, the version as advanced by the appellant gains credence. I am not satisfied with the enquiry or the evidence before the Labour Court. The grievance petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The appellant be reintated as Inspector. No order is made as to the back benefits.

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.