' In this appeal the decision dated 29-10-1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,1, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. The respondent was a conductor and on 15-9-1977 the bus conducted by him was checked and it was found that the respondent had not issued tickets to 21 passengers, nor had received fare from them. The checking party recovered the fare and issued tickets to the said passengers. From 2 passenger's fare had been realised by the respondent but tickets had not been issued. Form TT- 40 was given on the spot. The respondent was charge-sheeted. The charges-sheet is dated 4-10- 1977. It was received by him, according to the date put under his signatures, on 21-10-1977.
Considering the reply of the respondent as unsatisfactory, an enquiry was started in which he was found guilty. After serving a second show-cause notice, he was dismissed from service on 29-7- 1978.
3. The respondent raised an objection that the charge-sheet is time-barred. It has been argued that the misconduct had come to the knowledge of the District Manager on 21-9-1977. Therefore, the charge-sheet was not time-barred. Firstly, there is no documentary evidence that the misconduct for the first time came to this knowledge of the employer on 21-10-1977 and secondly, even if it be taken that it was so, the charge-sheet could be served upto 20-10-1977. The charge- sheet was, therefore, time-barred.
4. From two passengers fare had been recovered but tickets had not been issued. Besides this there were certain other passengers from whom neither fare had been recovered, nor tickets had been issued. In all there were four sets of passengers who were without tickets. Failure to issue tickets and not to recover fare does not amount to misconduct, but may amount to inefficiency, therefore, the major punishment of dismissal could not be awarded. There were four sets of persons who were without tickets, but out of them only two were such from whom fare had been recovered by the respondent, but tickets had not been issued. The Enquiry Officer found the respondent guilty of all the charges and thus the punishing authority was prejudiced by the enquiry report while prescribing the quantum of punishment. Three charges not amounting to misconduct prejudiced the mind of the dismissing authority, because he was under the impression that the misconduct had been committed by the respondent on four counts, whereas in reality there was only one misconduct. If the Enquiry Officer had found the respondent guilty of only one charge, the possibility cannot be excluded that the District Manager may have taken a lenient view and may have prescribed some other punishment short of dismissal. These factors were sufficient to set aside the dismissal order, therefore, the impugned decision of the learned lower court is not subject to any exception. I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it.