DECISION This application is made by District Manager, Government Transport Service, Hyderabad under section 37(2) of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 against Mr. Zahoor Ahmad who is a conductor in the department tinder the control of the applicant.
2. The application shows that the respondent conductor committed certain acts of misconduct which are as follows:- "On 18th February 1968 the respondent was found carrying 9 passengers without tickets having realised fares from 4 of them while on duty in G.T.S. Bus No. HD-3375 on Makli-Thatta route. The bus was checked by Mr. Muhammad Khan, Traffic Assistant .in presence of Mr. S. Ahmed Rizvi, Station Superintendent at Makli Bus Stop at 12-15 p.m."
3. Upon such report by the checking officer the respondent was charge-Sheeted by the applicant who also then ordered domestic enquiry against him as the explanation of the respondent to the charge-sheet was found unsatisfactory. A complete and fair domestic enquiry is said to have been held wherein the report of the enquiry officer was against the respondent who was found guilty by him of the alleged misconduct. The respondent was then also heard in person by the applicant second time. There--after the applicant has moved the present application for permis--sion to dismiss him for the above stated misconduct as certain Industrial Dispute cases bearing No. 30 of 1967 and Nos. 24 and 33 of 1968 are pending adjudication and determination before the Sind Labour Court No. 2, Karachi.
4. The respondent filed a written statement denying the allegations and the facts set out in the present application and also denied that no written reply was called for from him nor he was given any opportunity of being heard in person. According to him the applicant contemplated to dismiss him from service only to victimise him as he is an active office-bearer of the Union.
5. During the course of the proceedings in this Court two witnesses namely, Mr. Muhammad Khan, Traffic Assistant, Government Transport Service, Hyderabad and Mr. Urz Muhammad Abro, A.T.M., G.T.S. Sukkur were examined on behalf of the applicant by my learned Predecessor and the side for the applicant was closed by his Representative. The case was then fixed for recording evidence on behalf of the respondent. Lastly on 26th December 1970 when the respon--dent was called out absent but his Representative Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi was present, he stated that he had no instructions nor was any witness present on behalf of the respondent hence the side of the respondent was closed by the order of the Court.
6. We have only the evidence led on behalf of the applicant and Mr. Muhammad Khan (P.W. 1) has deposed to the same facts as are detailed in the narrative of the facts of the case. He has also produced nine tickets that he had issued to the passengers after checking the bus as Exh. P-1 and also produced T. T. 40 Form as Exh. P-2 regarding which he states that the respondent has signed this form but wrote no explanation of his on it. He also then states that Mr. Urz Muhammad Abro (P.W. 2) had conducted the domestic enquiry and this witness had given evidence before him while the respondent had participated in the enquiry. This witness was asked only one question in his cross-examination the answer to which is that he did not record the statement of the passenger which obviously cannot give any benefit to the respondent's case. Since the witness deposing on all other material facts constituting the allegation of misconduct against the respondent has not been cress-examined it is obvious that his evidence has to be accepted as correct on its face value. I also do not see any reason as to why he should not be believed in view of the state of evidence present on record.
7. The next witness Mr. Urz Muhammad Abro has also, inter alia, stated that he had held the domestic enquiry against the respondent wherein the latter has cross-examined the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution and this witness has- produced his final report on the conclusion of the said enquiry, charge-sheet against the respondent and his reply as Exh. P-3.
8. All the above evidence clearly shows that the facts constituting the alleged misconduct against the respondent are proved prima facie and the domestic enquiry against him also seems to be fair and impartial as Mr. Urz Muhammad Abro was not even put a single question in cross- examination. Hence I find that prima facie case for according permission to dismiss the respondent has been made out by the applicant as such this permission is granted. No one also appeared on behalf of the respondent as his Representative today, when I heard the arguments of the Representative for the applicant nor the respondent is also present in person although called out.