1. ' In this appeal the decision dated 2nd June, 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No, 6, Rawalpindi has been challenged, whereby the respondent was directed to be re- instated in service with back benefits.
2. ' The allegation against the respondent was that he had made interpolation in the vouchers by increasing the quantity of fluorescent tubes from 50 to 150 and received 150 tubes from the Store.
3. The vouchers were issued by Mr. Muhammad Afzal. The respondent was charge-sheeted and finding his reply as unsatisfactory an enquiry was held against him which culminated in his dismissal from services. The offence of the respondent was that Mr. Afzal, Assistant Engineer had issued voucher for 50 fluorescent tubes with his signatures, but had on telephone asked him to increase the quantity to 150 and receive 150 tubes from the Store. Mr. Afzal asked Mr. Irshad Ahmad, Junior Supervisor also on the telephone to deliver 150 tubes to the respondent. The Enquiry Officer and the dismissing authority did not accept the plea and in evidence of the prosecution witnesses who had supported this plea of the respondent and relying upon the statement of Mr. Afzal who had denied to have authorised to increase the quantity of tubes from 50 to 150, found the respondent guilty of misconduct, According to the respondent Mr. Afzal had motive to falsely implicate him by denying to have authorised the respondent on telephone to increase the quantity of tubes in the vouchers. Motive according to the respondent was that he had made a complaint against Mr. Afzal. Irshad Ahmad was very important witness because the vouchers for the supply of tubes was delivered to him by the respondent. He did not support the prosecution case.
4. ' He deposed that before the respondent had come to him to received telephonic message from Mr. Afzal who asked him to supply 150 tubes and let him speak to the respondent on telephone. He also said that the respondent had a talk with Mr. Afzal on his telephone during which the respondent said to Mr. Afzal how he could add 150 tubes and after Mr. Afzal said something in reply to the respondent and latter said that he would add 150 tubes with his own initials and afterwards would get his (Mr. Afzal's) initials on the vouchers. The witness also said that thereafter, he supplied 150 tubes and when the Incharge came he informed him. Mr. K. D. Mughal corroborated the statement of Irshad Ahmad saying that when he said then Mr. Irshad Ahmad told him about the issuance of 150 tubes on vouchers on which the quantity had been changed by the respondent on the telephonic direction of Mr. Afzal. Since two prosecution witnesses supported the versions of the respondent. The charge did not stand proved. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that on the 4th voucher the respondent thereafter changed the quantity to 50. In the voucher no doubt the quantity appears to have been changed to 50 but it was against the interest of the respondent to change it. So this is wrong to change it. On all the four vouchers the quantity was changed by the respondent from 50 to 150 on the asking of Mr. Afzal and he had actually received 150 tubes so he had no need to change the quantity again. This is not the case of the prosecution that 100 tubes were misappropriated by the respondent. The change was not established. The respondent was therefore, rightly directed to be re-instated. There is no force in the appeal which is dismissed.