1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned Chairman of the Second West Pakistan Labour Court, Karachi, dated the 1st of May 1970, whereby the learned Court allowed the applica--tion of the respondent under section 33 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the Ordinance). The learned Court came to the conclusion that the respondent having not been found to be guilty of the alleged misconduct by the Enquiry Officer, the District Manager was not justified in dismissing - the respondent. 'The facts giving rise to the present appeal briefly put are these.
2. The bus of the respondent-Conductor was checked by a Special Squad of the G. T. S., headed by the District Manager, G. T. S., Sukkur, Mr. Maqbool Ahmad, Inspector Anti-Corrup--tion, G. T. S., and Mr. Mohammad Afsar, Traffic Assistant, G. T. S., Sukkur. The bus was physically checked by Mr. Mohammad Afsar. He found that there were in all 17 passengers out of whom 9 passengers were without tickets and that the Conductor had already realised fare from these passengers. Mr. Afsar issued tickets to these 9 passengers. Mr. Afsar filled in the T. T. 40 Form. The respondent in reply stated on T. T. 40 that out of 9 passengers 4 were students, who had refused to pay the fare, and that he was about to issue tickets to the 5 passengers when Checking Party stopped the bus. Mr. Murad, Station Superintendent, G. T. S., was appointed as Enquiry Officer. On behalf of the Department only Mr. Afsar was examined. The respondent Conductor, on the other hand, appeared as his own witness alongwith two other witnesses.
3. It would appear from a perusal of the Enquiry Officer's report that he did not believe the statement of Mr. Muhammad Afsar. It is true he has not given any definite finding exonerating the respondent of the alleged misconduct. The Enquiry Officer observed as under :- "The Reporter also did not produce either the D. M. or the Inspector, Anti-Corruption in the enquiry.
4. Thus the case of Reporter is very much weakened because of absence of evidence against him. I am not going to take the version of T. A. as gospel truth when his story is not supported by any witness. On the contrary, the Conductor produced two witnesses in support of his defence."
5. On perusal of the above observation the only inference that can be drawn is that the Enquiry Officer accepted the version of the defence. In that view of the matter the respondent cannot be said to be guilty of the offence charged with. This Court has held in number of cases that it cannot sit as a Court of Appeal over the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer in a domestic enquiry.
6. In the present case nothing has been shown against the Enquiry Officer that he was prejudiced against the Department or that he was out to favour the respondent. In the absence of any such allegations this Court cannot examine the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer. The District Manager, therefore, acted illegally in dismissing the respondent from service. I would, therefore, maintain the award given by the learned Chairman of the Labour Court. The Appeal is dismissed.