' The decision, dated 12th March, 1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 5, Faisalabad has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement in service was dismissed.
2. The allegation against the appellant, for which he was dismissed, was that he had received fare from two ladies but had not issued tickets and thus had misappropriated the fare. The point in issue, 'therefore,- was if the appellant had actually realised the fare from two without ticket lady passengers ? This is not the case of the respondent that fare had been recovered by the appellant from the said ladies in the presence of the checking party. So either the two without ticket ladies or another passenger if he had seen the fare being realised were the witnesses but none of them was examined during the enquiry. This is true that the passengers not being under the control of the respondent could not be forced to appear before the Enquiry Officer but if the conductors are confronted with those passengers during checking or statements of the without ticket passengers are recorded and produced during the enquiry, the misconduct can be established. Whatever the passengers state before the checking staff is hearsay if the formers are not examined. In the present case it does not appear that the appellant had been confronted with the ticketless passengers or that they had, in the presence of the appellant, said that they had paid fare to him.
In Form TT-40 it is not mentioned by the checker that the without ticket ladies had said that they had paid fare to the appellant. If the said ladies had stated so, it would have been recorded in Form TT-40. If it had been done and yet the appellant had not in reply said that the passengers had falsely stated so, it could be said that he was in reality at fault. This is unsafe to rely upon hearsay evidence where it is not urged in TT-40 that in the presence of the conductor them without ticket passengers had said that they had paid the fare. Issuance of N. C. Tickets is not sufficient to prove the misappropriation. Such tickets are issued by the checkers and not by the conductors. The latter cannot prevent the former from doing so as at the time of checking the R. P. . Are taken into possession by the checking party.
3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that during personal hearing, the appellant sought pardon. It is not recorded so in any of the statement of the appellant in Exh. P. 11 so he is not bound by it. The offence thus was not established.
4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court and the dismissal order, the appellant is directed to be re-instated in service. The appellant did not say before the learned lower Court in his statement that he remained unemployed after his dismissal, so he is not entitled to back benefits.