' The decision, dated 3-9-1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 5, Faisalabad has been challenged, whereby the respondent was directed to be re-instated in service without back benefits. The respondent has brought cross-objections for claiming tack benefits. The appeal and the cross-objections are being disposed of together.
2. The allegations for which the respondent was dismissed from service were that diesel consumption was excessive on 25-3-1982 by 39 litres and on 27-3-1982 by 41 litres. The plea taken by the respondent for the excess consumption on 27-3-1982 was that the bus had gone out of order and was dragged by another bus upto Sargodha and for 25-3-1982 was that a bridge was out of order, therefore, the bus remained started the whole night. No such pleas were taken in reply to the charge-sheet. If the bus was dragged by another bus, then no diesel was consumed in the bus, so no question of excessive consumption of diesel could arise.
3. Sometime unforeseen incidents take place and sometime the quality of fuel is poor due to adulteration, which results in excess consumption of fuel. Usually due to the carelessness of the driver excess fuel is consumed in the happening of unforeseen incidents, so extreme penalty of removal from service is not called for. In clear cut case of misappropriation the punishment of dismissal or removal from service may be imposed. Since it cannot be definitely said that pilferage of fuel was made, the respondent was rightly directed to be re-instated in service. Since it appears that respondent, the appellant suffered loss of wastage of fuel, the respondent is not entitled to back benefits.
4. As a result, the appeal as well as the cross-objections are dismissed.