' The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision, dated 29-9-1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,7, Gujranwala, directing the re-instatement of Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din (hereinafter to be called the respondent) in service without back benefits.
The respondent has in his appeal claimed back benefits, whereas Government Transport Service, Sialkot (hereinafter to be described as the appellant) has challenged the direction of re- instatement of the respondent in service. Since both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The respondent is alleged to have realised fare of Rs,2 from a passenger but did not issue ticket to him and thus had misappropriated the fare and that he committed an act of indiscipline by snatching the R.P.T. Book from the checker.
3. So far as realisation of bus fare is concerned, the employer acted upon the hearsay evidence of the checker. Obviously, the checker was not present when the respondent is alleged to have recovered the fare and only the passenger concerned may have told this fact to the checker. Since the passenger was not produced as a witness, nor his statement was recorded in the presence of the respondent at the time of checking, there was no direct evidence on the record. It does not appear that the respondent was confronted with the passenger at the time of checking. However, the learned lower Court has wrongly discarded the statement of the checker so far as the charge of snatching R.P,T. Book is concerned. But the difficulty is that the Enquiry Officer was not an unprejudiced person and was not capable of acting as such. He was a witness against the respondent in a criminal case in 1978. The respondent had objected to his appointment as Enquiry Officer, but he was not changed. The conviction based upon the report of such an Enquiry Officer, therefore, was not maintainable and was rightly set aside by the learned lower Court on both counts.
4. Since it cannot be said that the charge of snatching away the R.P.T. Book by the respondent from the checker, is groundless, the respondent is not entitled to back benefits.
5. As a result, both the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed in limine.