' The decision, dated 29-5-1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,1, Lahore has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the respondent was directed to be re-instated in service with back benefits.
2. The allegation against the respondent was that he had recovered bus fare from two passengers but had not issued tickets 'to them and that another passenger was travelling without ticket from whom no fare had been realised. The learned lower Court has directed the re-instatement of the respondent on the grounds that the charge-sheet was time-barred, that the learned counsel appearing for the appellant had no power-of-attorney and that the written statement was not signed by the District Manager.
3. It has been argued that from the date on which the employer got information the charge-sheet is within time. The bus was checked on 10-12-1982. The charge-sheet is, dated 13-1-1983 and was delivered on 14-1-1983. The District Manager ordered on 9-1-1983 that the respondent may be charge-sheeted. Except the order whereby the District Manager directed the issuance of charge- sheet and suspended the respondent, there is no other order of any earlier date. This shows that on 9-1-1983 T.T-40 was placed before the District Manager. The respondent did not produce any evidence to the effect that the District Manager got information of the commission of misconduct much earlier than 9-1-1983 and that from the said date the charge-sheet was time-barred.
According to Standing Order 15(4) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, charge-sheet should be given within one month of the commission of the alleged misconduct or within one month of the date the employer gets information. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary it stands from that the District Manager got information on 9-1-1983. So the charge-sheet delivered on 14-1-1983 was within time and the learned lower Court erred in holding that it was time-barred. No doubt in Exh.R.4 notice of inquiry it is mentioned that the respondent had refused to receive it but the respondent admitted service of notice, dated 27-3-1983 requiring him to appear in the inquiry on 9-4-1983. So the inquiry notice was duly served. The plea taken in evidence was that 9-4-1983 was the date of inquiry but he had been sent on duty on the said date. But he did not say that he had informed the authority who had deputed him on duty that 9-4-1983 was the date of inquiry. Since the respondent had been served for 9-4-1983, he should have told the concerned authority about it when he was ordered to conduct a bus.
4. This is true that no power-of-attorney in favour of Mr. Amir-ud- Din Ansari, learned counsel for the appellant, is on the file, nor the written statement was signed by the District Manager, but this did not absolve the Court of the duty to see if the respondent had made out a case of re- instatement in service. On the grounds that the counsel had no power-of-attorney and that written statement was not bearing the signatures of the employer were not sufficient to re-instate the respondent. The respondent was duly confronted with the without-ticket passengers as mentioned in T.T-40. The respondent instead of denying this fact refused to give reply. This shows that whatever is mentioned in T .T-40 is correct. Since the passengers deposed in his presence that they had paid fare, the misappropriation stood proved, so far as the two passengers are concerned. The charge was thus amply proved. The learned lower Court thus wrongly directed the re-instatement of the- respondent in service.
5. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the order of dismissal is restored and the grievance petition of the respondent is dismissed.