' This appeal arises from the decision dated 11th February, 1978 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and be was directed to be re-instated in service with back benefits.
2. The respondent on 22nd March, 1977 produced TT-2 for pre-audit. He, however, did not produce R.
P. T. Book on the plea that it had been lost. The office allowed him to deposit the cash and to produce R. P. T. Book later on. The respondent did not produce R. P. T. Book on the plea that it had not been traced out. On 16th April, 1977 it was found that 62 tickets had been sold by the respondent on 22nd March, 1977 but they could not be checked as they were not produced. The full value of the tickets from Lahore to Kasur was held to be outstanding against the respondent. It was also reported that in some other Form TT-2 the respondent had not mentioned some more tickets, the value of which was calculated at Rs, 132.25. The respondent deposited the amount as directed to him. He was charge-sheeted for not producing the duplicate copies of the 62 tickets and thus had misappropriated the amount of Rs, 113.90. The other charge was that he had not mentioned some luggage tickets in TT-2 No, 5455 and thus had misappropriated an amount of Rs, 18.35. The appellant replied the charge sheet but the reply was not considered satisfactory and an enquiry was held against him, as a result of which he was dismissed from service.
3. He was found guilty of both the charges but I am at loss to understand how in the absence of R.
P. T. Book it was found definitely that certain tickets had not been entered in TT-2. The R. P. T. Book contains the duplicate copies of the tickets issued to the passengers and those tickets are entered alongwith the fare in TT-2. In the absence of the duplicates or counterfoils, it cannot be found from TT-2 whether all the tickets sold are entered in it or some are missing. The finding, therefore, that 62 tickets were not entered in TT-2 may have been based only upon guess work, but there was no material to give any definite finding. Likewise, it is said that some luggage tickets were not entered in TT-2. Luggage book is separate and is called E. L. T., but there is no evidence that E. L. T. Was produced and after making comparison it was found that certain luggage tickets had not been entered in TT-2. No charge was framed with regard to the loss of R. P. T. If the respondent had intentionally not produced R. P. T. Book, he could be proceeded against for that act but in the absence of the said book it is impossible to say whether all the tickets sold were entered in TT-2 or some were not entered. In the enquiry proceedings also it has not been shown how in the absence of R. P. T. Book it was found that certain tickets had not been entered in TT-2. Rather the witness clearly stated that since the R. P. T was not produced, he was not in a position to make the checking. Even the audit office had allowed the respondent to deposit the amount according to TT- 2 and to produce R. P. T. In future. But since the said book was never produced by the respondent it was wrongly said that some tickets had not been entered in TT-2. Likewise, there is no evidence that E. L. T. Was produced and that the comparison of the said book with TT-2 disclosed that certain luggage tickets had not been entered in TT-2. The learned lower Court wrongly held that all the tickets had been issued in TT-2. Anyhow, there was no evidence on the record to show definitely that the respondent had not entered certain tickets in TT-2. No case against the respondent, therefore, was proved and he was rightly directed to be re-instated by the learned lower Court.
However, as admittedly the R. P. T. Book was lost, even if it be said that the respondent did not lose it intentionally, yet this cannot be denied that he did not take due care and caution to safeguard the R. P. T., with the result that it was lost. If the respondent did not enter some tickets in TT-2, he thereby must have caused loss to the appellant. Since he did not take due care of the book, he is not entitled to back benefits. I, accordingly, partly accept the appeal and modify the impugned decision of the learned lower Court by disallowing back benefits to the respondent.