Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑321 of 1985, heard on 19th January, 1986.

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑‑Domestic enquiry‑‑Evidence‑‑Bus conductor allege to have realised fare without issuance of tickets‑‑Ticket‑less passenger statement neither recorded during raid nor before, Enquiry Officer--- Solitary statement of raiding Inspector in support of allegation‑‑Reliance held, could not be placed on such solitary hearsay evidence.

Punjab Road Transport Board v. Mahmoodul Hassan 1985 P L 813 rel.

Gul Muhammad Soomro for Appellant.

Date of hearing: 19th January, 1986.

Muhammad Hussain, the conductor filed an application and section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, for re‑instatement with back benefits.

2. The facts which give rise to the present appeal are that on 23‑7‑1982 a T . T . 40 report was issued to him and it was followed by charge‑sheet, dated 5‑8‑1982, and after expiry of 10 months an enquiry notice was issued to him while the second show‑cause notice was service on him on 24‑7‑1984. Thus, from 23‑7‑1982 to 26‑7‑1984, no action was taken against him and finally, he was dismissed from service on 26‑7‑1984. The allegations against the conductor are that he had not issued tickets to the passengers travelling in his bus although he had realized fare from them. The respondent denied the allegations and pleaded that he is innocent.

3. The stand taken by the appellant Corporation is that the respondent who was employed as a conductor was on duty on 23‑7‑1982, had committed a fraud as he had not issued tickets to four passengers having realized fare from them and the checking party had obtained unpunched tickets, from the respondent and gave the same to the ticketless passengers. On the other hand, the respondent's case is that when the checking party had checked his bus he was issuing tickets to the passengers at the back side of the bus as 67 passengers were on board.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits and were cross examined.

5. The learned Court framed an issue whether the impugned dismissal was illegal or invalid.

6. The allegation against the conductor was that the respondent did not issue tickets to 4 ticketless passengers though he had realized fare from them. A domestic enquiry was held against him and according to him it was not properly held as the Enquiry Officer had merely taken signatures on a blank paper and had made entries behind his back. Neither the statement of ticketless passenger was recorded by the checking party at the spot, nor any such passenger was produced before the Enquiry Officer. During the enquiry, only the statement of one, Ali Ahmad Inspector was recorded on behalf of the appellant Corporation and he had admitted in his statement that at the time of checking, the respondent was issuing tickets to the passengers at the back side of the bus as 67 passengers were travelling in it. Before the Enquiry Officer, the respondent had adopted his earlier statement which was recorded by the checking party on the spot at the time of filling up of T.T. 40 report and this statement of the respondent has gone unchallenged. Merely on this hearsay solitary evidence of the appellant Corporation, the respondent was held to be guilty of the misconduct and subsequently he was dismissed. As regards the period of two years from 23‑7‑1982 to 26‑7‑1984, there were many reports against the respondent and he was fined three time and once his increment was stopped. for one year. However, there is nothing on record to establish this allegation.

7. In these circumstances, no reliance can be placed on the solitary statement of the appellant corporation which is merely hearsay. In an identical case, reported in the case of Punjab Road Transport Board v. Mahmoodul Hassan 1985 P L C 813, it was held by the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal that in order to prove the charge it is essential that at least the statement of the passengers concerned should be recorded at the time of checking and the statements made by the passengers in the presence of the conductor may be produced before the Enquiry Officer, if the passengers for their convenience cannot be produced in the enquiry in person. Overall the enquiry was not believed to be valid by the Labour Court. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Labour Court. However, I would maintain the re‑instatement of the respondent conductor but would not allow the back benefits.

8. The learned representative of the appellant Corporation has conceded to the order of re‑instatement but he prayed that the back benefits may not be given as it would unnecessarily burden the Corporation. I accept this plea of the appellant Corporation.

9. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed in limine.

A. E. 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.