' Zahoor Ahmad, appellant, was employed as a Conductor in 1975 in Punjab Urban Transport Corporation. On 3-6-1977 his bus was checked and the following irregularities were detected :-- "(a) He did not issue tickets to 10 passengers for their journey for different destinations.
(b) He kept excess cash of Rs, 12.20 than the actual sale proceeds of tickets.
' Form TT-40 was issued to him. He was charge-sheeted and his reply to the charge-sheet was found unsatisfactory. An enquiry was instituted against him. The Enquiry Officer vide report dated 13-7-1979 (Exh. R-6) held the appellant guilty of the charges framed against him. The Enquiry Officer, however, held that since it was a case of negligence therefore, action is recommended against him short of dismissal from service. The employer vide order dated 16-2-1978 dismissed the appellant from service. After serving a grievance notice, the appellant filed a petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before Punjab Labour Court No, 6, Rawalpindi, which vide impugned decision dated 27-12-1978 dismissed the same. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned decision, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
2. I have heard at length the counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire material available on the record and the authorities cited by the parties.
3. As mentioned above there were two charges against the appellant-one not issuing tickets to the passengers and the other being in possession of excess cash. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, both the charges did not amount to misconduct but mere violation of rules. On the other hand the counsel for the respondent argued that out of 45 passengers not to issue tickets to 10 clearly shows mens rea of the appellant. It was not a mere chance of rush of passengers that he could not issue tickets to ten passengers. His intention was to receive the fare from those ten passengers at the time of debussing. He further contended that excess cash with the appellant was most serious and was sufficient to justify his dismissal. The appellant is an old employee of the respondent ; he knew the rules for keeping excess cash. If the excess cash belonged to him or he had brought with him from his house, he 'should have entered the case in the relevant form supplied to him for this purpose. According to the counsel, the fact that the appellant did not enter the excess cash in the relevant form clearly shows his dishonesty. Mr. Justice Shafi-ur-Rehman in P.
R. 7'. B.'s case, in a similar situation while dealing with excess cash with the conductor after discussing the relevant departmental rules/instructions observed as under :- "In the face of these instructions there was no defence available to the employee, that it was his personal property nor was it the liability of the employer to further satisfy the Inquiry Officer, or the Labour Court for the matter, that it had been illegally earned. If rules of the Establishment or of conduct are violated the person violating the rules is under duty to explain it and not the person who has brought to notice the violation. In the case in hand the violation itself was not in dispute, only the consequences of it."
4. The view of Mr. Justice Shafi-ur-Rehman has been followed by the Labour Courts in several cases. I have myself given my anxious considerations to the facts and the circumstances of the case and have reached the conclusion that the excess cash found with the appellant, in the circumstances; amounts to misconduct. The Management had rightly dismissed the appellant from service and the Labour Court was justified to reject his grievance petition.
5. After hearing the counsel for the parties at length and going through the entire material available on the record, I am clearly of the view that the impugned decision of the Labour Court is perfectly correct and requires no interference. Consequently, the present appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 1977 PLC 148