The decision, dated 23-1-1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 5, Faisalabad has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the respondent was directed to be re- instated in service.
2. Bus No,2143 conducted by the respondent was checked on 15-8-1979. Twelve passengers were without tickets and the respondent had not realised fare from them. The respondent was charge- sheeted and an enquiry was held, which culminated in his dismissal from service. The Enquiry Officer found the respondent guilty of negligence in the performance of his duties and violation of departmental rules and regulations. The learned lower Court, though, directed the re-instatement of the respondent but has not mentioned the law on the point. According to him, habitual misconduct or habitual breach of law is necessary condition for misconduct. According to Standing Order 15(1)(ii)(a), disregard or disobedience of the rules is not a misconduct. Habitual negligence is misconduct. Since the Enquiry Officer did not say that the respondent was guilty of habitual negligence, so the respondent did not commit any misconduct and could not be punished with dismissal from service. He had not realised the fare, so it cannot be said that he misappropriated any bus fare.
3. The learned lower Court has rightly found that the grievance notice was within time. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant has no force that from the date of dismissal period of limitation for giving grievance notice started. The respondent had preferred departmental appeal and the information of its rejection was given to the respondent on 2-7-1983 vide Exh. P.7. So the grievance notice served on 24-7-1983 was within time.
4. As a result, the appeal being without substance is dismissed.