' The P. U. T. C. Has challenged the decision. Dated 14th May, 1978 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore, whereby he accepted the grievance petition of the respondent directing his reinstatement, in service with back benefits.
2. The bus conducted by the respondent was checked at Nawankot bus stop on 8th December, 1976. Five passengers had delighted from the bus and they were found to be without tickets. They had boarded the bus from Bhati Gate. They told the checkers that fare had been recovered from them by the conductor. Form TT-40 was issued to the respondent who replied that the passengers had told a lie. He was charge-sheeted on 22nd March, 1977. Finding his reply to the charge-sheet as unsatisfactory, an enquiry was held against him which culminated in his dismissal.
3. The stand taken by the appellants before the lower Court was that the District Manager acquired knowledge of the misconduct on 15th March, 1977 therefore, the charge-sheet dated 22nd March, 1977 was within time. No evidence was produced before the lower Court, except the production of documents Exhs. D-1 to D-12. Only the District Manager could tell on what date the misconduct was brought to his knowledge, but since he was not examined, there is no evidence on the point. The documentary evidence produced in the shape of Exhs. D-1 to D-12 also do not show that the misconduct for the first time came to the knowledge of the District Manager on 15th March, 1977.
Exh. D-1 are the tickets ; D-2 Form TT-40. D-3 charge-sheet, D-4 reply to the charge-sheet, D-5 enquiry notice, D-6 enquiry proceedings, D-7 enquiry report, D-8 second show-cause notice, D-9 notice to the respondent to appear on 19th July, 1977 in the enquiry, D-10 another show-cause notice, D-11 original dismissal order, and D-12 the dismissal order conveyed to the respondent.
However, the learned counsel for the appellants has argued that through Form TT-40 the allegations made against the respondent were conveyed to him and since it was done within one month of the misconduct, it cannot be said that the charge-sheet was time-barred.
' Form TT-40 is not the charge-sheet and if it is said that it is a charge-sheet then it was not issued by the competent authority. Form TT-40 is given on the spot to get the reply of the conductor concerned. Charge- sheet is given on Form TT-41, which is Exh. D-3 and carries the date as 22nd March, 1977. The learned lower Court, therefore, has rightly observed that the charge-sheet is time- barred.
4. The learned lower Court has tried to exonerate the respondent on facts but I cannot agree with him. He has observed that since the evidence of the passengers and the statement of the respondent were balanced the checkers should have examined the other passengers or checked the cash. Examination of other passengers is 'not necessary, nor the other passengers usually care to see whether from a particular passenger fare has been recovered or not. No doubt, if cash is checked and it is found to being excess, but this kind of evidence is very dangerous. Sometimes conductors have private cash with them, therefore, excessive cash did not necessarily show that some fare had been recovered but tickets not issued. Carrying excess cash amounts to violation of rules and a conductor may be punished for that offence but excess cash unless it amounts to the same amount which is equal to the price of the tickets not issued to the passengers, it cannot be as the character of corroborative evidence. The passengers who had paid the fare are to be believed particularly when the amount of fare is not sufficient. They may be actuated to tell a lie to save the fare it is considerable, but no one is expected to tell a lie to save few paisa's. So it cannot be said that on facts the case was not proved by the appellants. Since on facts the case was proved and only on account of a technical defect which was that the charge sheet was time barred, the respondent could not be dismissed, therefore, he was not entitled to back benefits.
5. As a result of the observations made above, I partly accept the appeal and modify the impugned decision of the learned lower' Court and disallow back benefits to the respondent.