Applicant Ghulam Rasool has filed application under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969 for reinstatement in service with full back benefits and continuity.
2. Facts giving rise to this application as stated by the applicant are that he was employed as conductor in the Karachi Transport Corporation, North Depot, Karachi. He was member of Karachi Transport Corporation Workers Union which lost its status of Collective Bargaining Agent in the month of With in year 1987. Due to Trade Union activities the applicant was victimised and false complaint was lodged against him by Inspector Shaikh Jamal Ahmed with respondent No. 1 that the applicant has realized fare from passengers without issuing tickets. The respondent No. 1 issued charge-sheet dated 5th February, 1987 which was delivered to applicant on 25th February, 1987.
The applicant submitted reply which was treated as unsatisfactory without assigning any reason.
The applicant attended the enquiry and on completion of the enquiry he received show-cause notice for personal hearing on 13th September, 1987 but he could not appear and another show- cause notice was issued directing the applicant to appear before respondent No. 1 on 4th October, 1987. The applicant appeared before the District Manager respondent No. 1, before whom he explained the whole position but the respondent No. 1 delivered a pre-typed letter to the applicant which was later on found by the applicant dismissal order. On 22nd October, 1987 the applicant served grievance notice by Registered Post A/D on the respondents and then filed the grievance petition.
3. The respondents resisted the application and in reply statement stated that the applicant was dismissed from service on charge of misconduct, after holding proper enquiry. The respondent denied that the applicant appeared for personal hearing on 4-10-1987 and the respondents stated that an ex parte decision was therefore taken and the applicant was dismissed from service.
4. Applicant filed his affidavit-in-evidence and he was cross-examined by Mr. Azmatullah Khan representative for the respondent and in cross-examination relevant documents were produced through him. On behalf of the respondent Islam Ahmed Khan, District Manager who dismissed the applicant from service, Shaikh Jamal Ahmed Inspector reported against the applicant and Manzoor Ahmed Samijo, Enquiry Officer filed their affidavits-in-evidence but the respondents only produced Manzoor Ahmed Samijo, Enquiry Officer for cross-examination and did not produce the former two witnesses for cross-examination.
5. I have heard the arguments of Mr. Khalilur Rehman learned representative for the applicant and have gone through the written arguments filed by Mr. Gul Muhammad Soomro, learned representative for the respondent and have perused the evidence and record.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION POINT NO. 1. Whether the dismissal of the applicant from service is illegal and the applicant is entitled for the relief prayed by him?
FINDINGS AND REASONS Charge against the applicant was that Inspector Shaikh Jamal Ahmed while checking the bus of the applicant found that three passengers travelling in the bus were possessing tickets which were issued in the previous trip by the applicant and each ticket was of Rs.4 and thereby the applicant is alleged to have misappropriated amount of Rs.12 which he had realized as fare from those three passengers travelling in the bus. The applicant in reply to charge-sheet and also in his statement in the enquiry took the plea that the Reporter had collected the used tickets in first trip and he showed the same tickets at the time of checking in second trip. On reply to charge-sheet the District Manager respondent No. 1 wrote Reply unsatisfactory but did not give any reason as to why it was unsatisfactory. On statement of the applicant during the enquiry he was not cross-examined by the prosecutor of the respondents and there appears no reason to disbelieve the version of the applicant. TT. 40 report also shows that the applicant was not confronted with the passengers from whom the applicant is alleged to have realised the fare and to have delivered them used tickets.
Statement of Inspector Shaikh Jamal Ahmed Reporter in the enquiry obviously was not recorded on oath as it is not mentioned in his statement that it has been recorded on oath. Admittedly cash bag of the applicant was not checked to show that any excess cash was in the cash bag of the applicant. No ticketless passenger was A examined in the domestic enquiry and they were also not produced in the Court. As it appears from the order of dismissal passed by the District Manager respondent No. 1 on Exh. AW1/22 it was passed in absence of the applicant without giving him personal hearing on 4-10-1987 and the Medical Certificates Exh. AW1/23 and Exh. AW1/24 show that the applicant was advised rest by department of medicine, Medical Unit No. 1, J.P.M.C. from 9-9- 1987 for 20 days vide certificate Exh. AW1/23 and rest for 15 days w.e.f. 29-9-1987 to 15-10-1987 vide Certificate Exh. AW1/24 which the respondent have failed to prove to be false. The applicant therefore, has been dismissed from service without personal hearing on 4-10-1987 and the act of the respondent No. 1 is, therefore, against the principle of natural justice. The cumulative result of above discussion therefore is that the order of dismissal from service of the applicant dated 4-10- 1987 passed by the District Manager respondent No. 1 will not sustain and is hereby set aside.
Accordingly the application stands allowed and the respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant in service within 7 (seven) days from the date of this order. Since neither in application nor in affidavit-in-evidence there has been assertion of the applicant that he is jobless since the date of dismissal, I decline to award back benefits to the applicant.