The decision dated 21-3-1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad has been challenged; whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re- instatement in service was dismissed.
2. The allegation made against the appellant was that he alongwith the checker embezzled bus fare by receiving the fare but not issuing tickets to 7 passengers. When the checking squad checked the bus, the checker tried to slip away but he was apprehended. Seven passengers were found ticketless from whom fare had been realised by the appellant. The case against the checker is said to be still pending but the appellant has been dismissed from service. The statements of the passengers were recorded which are on the record. They bear the signatures of the appellant. This shows that in the presence of the appellant the passengers deposed against him. He, therefore, had the opportunity of confrontation. The statement of the driver was also recorded on the spot and he too implicated the appellant alongwith Yasin, Checker. No doubt, the driver, who was examined in defence during the inquiry, stated that there was no fault of the appellant but in his statement recorded at the time of checking he had implicated the appellant anti Yasin Checker both. The plea of the appellant that Yasin Checker hats realised the fare is untrue. The checking squad had no enmity with the appellant. It is apparent that the appellant committed embezzlement of bus fare as stated by the passengers in their statements. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the dismissal order is contradictory to the charge-sheet has no force. In the charge --sheet it is said that the appellant and Yasin Checker both joined hands and committed misappropriation of bus fare, but in the dismissal order only about the appellant it is said that he committed the misconduct. The inquiry against Yasin Checker is pending separately and his case is to be decided by a different authority. Since the dismissing authority, who dismissed the appellant had to consider and decide the case so far it related to the appellant only so he had given finding only against him. If he had said against Yasin Checker, the latter would have been prejudiced in the inquiry pending against him. But so far as evidence is concerned, it has come on the record against Yasin and the appellant both. So by the evidence produced in the inquiry, the charge stands amply established against the appellant and he has been rightly convicted and dismissed and his grievance petition rightly disallowed.
As a result the appeal fails and is dismissed A.E