' The appeal captioned above is directed against the decision, dated 16th March, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement in service.
2. The allegation against the appellant was that when bus No, 4717 conducted by him was checked on 19th April, 1979 at Kot Chhutta, six passengers bound for D. G. Khan were holding tickets upto Hamidwala. Passengers, statement is marked Exh. R.
1. T. T-40 is Exh. R.
1.
3. It has been argued that T. T. 40 was not issued at the spot inasmuch as only a note was recorded on it and it was prepared afterwards. It appears to be so but no prejudice was caused to the appellant because the contents of T. T.-40 are according to the note given on the margin meaning that no addition was made while preparing T. T.-40. No doubt, the signatures of the appellant do not appear on the passengers' statement marked R. 1 but the plea of the appellant is quite different. He said that six female beggars purchased tickets for Hamidwala and refused to get down there insisting that they wanted to go to Dera Ghazi Khan. The appellant could have examined any of the passengers travelling in the bus in support of his plea.
4. The real point on which the appeal succeeds is that previous enquiry officer was changed for the reasons not disclosed and the new enquiry officer did not record the prosecution evidence de novo. He took defence evidence of the appellant and relying upon the prosecution evidence recorded by his predecessor gave report against the appellant. The second enquiry officer had no chance to note the demeanors of the prosecution evidence, with the result that the appellant was prejudiced.
' The conviction and sentence passed on the report of the enquiry officer, who did not complete the enquiry himself is not sustainable.
5. As a result of the observations made above, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court and the order of dismissal, the appellant is directed to be reinstated in service. Since the appellant has succeeded only on a technical ground, he is not entitled to back benefits.