1. ' The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent while acting as Time Checker recovered Re. 1 from the conductors of the buses which passed from Township terminus on 17th May, 1979. Muhammad Khalil an employee of the appellant was present there and saw the respondent committing this misconduct. He reported the matter whereupon the respondent was charge-sheeted and dismissed after inquiry. No order was placed on the lower Court record and on the inquiry file for the appointment of Inquiry Officer. Inquiry can be ordered only after considering the reply to the charge-sheet if the reply has been found unsatisfactory. It appears that without considering the reply to the charge-sheet inquiry was ordered verbally. This reasoning of the learned Presiding Officer of the lower Court is also cogent that the conductors who are alleged to have paid tips at Re. 1 to the respondent were not examined at the inquiry. The complainant Muhammad Khalil only saw the passing of the money. What talk occurred between the respondent and the conductors who are alleged to have paid Re. 1 each to the respondent is not known. So, it is only the opinion of Muhammad Khalil that the money was a tip. Examination of the conductors who paid the amount was necessary to (sic) hypothesis that the amounts were either taken as a loan or in discharge of past loan. This decision has been made presuming that money was paid. But plea of the respondent was in total denial. The charge was not proved and the respondent was rightly directed to be re-instated. There is no force in the appeal which is dismissed.