' Respondent Zamir Khan, who was employed as driver of a S. R. T. C. Bus, was discharged from service on 14th June, 1980, on the charge of preferring 2 false and bogus bills for a total amount of Rs, 210. He challenged the orders of termination of his services before the learned Labour Court which has directed the S. k. T. C., the appellant herein, to reinstate him with back benefits. The learned Labour Court gave this direction in view of the fact that the sole witness, who had given evidence in the domestic enquiry against the respondent was Traffic Superintendent Zafrullah, against whom the respondent admittedly had levelled serious allegations and made a complaint to the District Manager. The learned Labour Court was also influenced by the fact that the Enquiry Officer had failed to examine the proprietors of Sahiwal Diesel Service and Abdul Wahab & Brothers, Mirpur Khas to whom the respondent claimed to have paid the total amount of Rs, 210 for the repair of the fuel pump of Bus No,1073, which according to him had got out of order at Mirpurkhas. The S. R. T. C., feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the learned Labour Court, which was given on 18th January, 1981, have come up in appeal to this Tribunal.
2. I have heard Mr. Raes Mohammad Mushtaq, the learned counsel for the S. R. T. C., and Mr. Wahid Bux, who appeared for the respondent driver. As it appeared from the record that an attempt had been made by Mr. Noor Mohammad Baloch, the Enquiry Officer, to examine the proprietors of Sahiwal Diesel Service and Abdul Wahab & Brothers, but they had declined to give evidence in the formal enquiry and since the Enquiry Officer had no authority to compel or require the attendance of the aforsaid witnesses, the said 2 witnesses were summoned and examined by this Tribunal.
Before discussing their evidence, it may be pointed out that the respondent driver had preferred 2 bills, one for Rs, 135, allegedly from Abdul Wahab & Brothers, for purchase of parts of the fuel pump of the bus, and the other for Rs, 75, being the repair charges for the fuel pump and antomiser.
Although, at first witness Mohammad Saleem the proprietor of Sahiwal Diesel Service, asserted that he had repaired the fuel pump of Bus No, 1073, which was brought to his workshop by the respondent driver, on being shown his bill, dated 19th March, 1980, which is on the printed form of his workshop, he was forced to admit that he had neither opened the fuel pump of Bus No, 1073, nor charged the respondent any amount for repair of the fuel pump. He further conceded that he had only repaired the automiser of the bus in question, for which he had charged from the respondent driver a sum of Rs,
35. It may be pointed out that in the bill Exh. Tri. 1/1, dated 19th March, 1980, the witness has categorically stated that the fuel pump of the bus was neither repaired nor opened. As regards the second witness, Abdul Wahab, who is then a properitor of Abdul Wahab & Brothers at Mirpurkhas, he has stated that no parts of the fuel pump or other auto parts were ever purchased from him or from his shop by respondent Zamir Khan. He was shown a writing, dated 19th March, 1980, and stated that the said writing is his and on his letter pad. He had given that writing to some employees of the S. R. T. C. Who had come to enquire from him whether the respondent driver had ever purchased auto parts from him. According to that writing, no auto parts or parts of the fuel pump for Bus No, 1073, were ever sold by the witness or from his shop. It is clear from the evidence of these 2 witnesses that the 2 bills preferred by respondent Zamir Khan were bogus and he had attempted to default the S. R. T. C. Of a sum of Rs, 175 by claiming an amount of Rs, 210 when in fact he had only spent a sum of Rs, 35.
3. Apart from the evidence of the aforesaid 2 witnesses, which is conclusive, there is evidence of Traffic Superintendent Zafarullah, that Bus No, 1073, was got opened by him in the presence of the respondent driver and it was found that the fuel pump had neither been opened nor it was repaired. Mr. Wahid Bux the learned representative for the respondent, sought to argue that the enquiry proceedings were perverse in that there was no tangible evidence before the Enquiry Officer to establish that the bills of the respondent are false. I have already pointed out that though the Enquiry Officer had made attempts to summon the proprietors of Sahiwal Diesel Service and Abdul Wahab & Brothers, they had declined to attend the enquiry. All that was done by them was to give in writing rebutting the claim of the respondent in respect of his two bills for Rs, 210. If the claim of the respondent was genuine, nothing prevented him from producing letters of certificates from the proprietors of the 2 shops to the effect that they had received the amounts which the respondent had claimed. I am, therefore, of the view that there was material before the Enquiry Officer on the basis of which he could reasonably come to the conclusion that the 2 bills preferred by the respondent were bogus. In any case, now when the proprietors of Sahiwal Diesel Service and Abdul Wahab & Brothers have been examined, there is overwhelming evidence to show that the bills preferred by the respondent driver were bogus. The respondent should consider himself lucky that only his services were terminated and that he was not dismissed from service.
4. For the reasons discussed by me above, 1 am of the view that the misconduct of the respondent, which was for preferring bogus bills and claims, stands fully established. I would accordingly set aside the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court and allow the appeal.