1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).---This is an application under section 25 (1)(b) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1966, hereinafter referred to as the Act, by M.
2. A. Hannan, ex-Conductor, E.P.R.T.C.
3. The case of the first party is that he was working as a per--manent worker as bus conductor since 13-7-68. On 4-2-70, the second party No. 2 dismissed him from his service illegally and arbitrarily by way of victimisation. The first party was elected as an office-bearer of the Workers' Union of the establishment of the second party at Chittagong. Since then the second party was not happy with -him. On 1-11-69 the second party No. 2 issued a charge-sheet on the first party making some fabricated and got up charge of an attempt to misappropriate the money of the Cor--poration. He submitted an explanation on 4-11-69. An enquiry was held, but it was not fair. The statement of the first party was not recorded. He was not given proper opportunity to, defend himself. He was put under suspension for a long period of 2 months without any subsistence allowance. During the period of suspension he had to attend vice daily as per direc--tion of the second party No. 2. He sent grievance petition to the 'second party No. 1 on 9-2-70 and to the second party No. 2 on 10-2-
70. He received no reply. But the second party No. 2 issued a letter to the first party on 9-2-70 granting him incre--ments of his salary from Rs. 100 to Rs. 105 with effect from 14-7-69. This order was passed long after the order of dismissal and there was no direction as to whether the first party would resume his duties. Because of this illegal action of the second party the first party has preferred this application in this Court for re-instatement to his former post with all back wages and other legal dues.
4. The second party filed written statement in which it was st4ted that the petition was not maintainable. It was stated that the first party was detailed on duty on 22-I0-69. During the course of his duty his cash bag was checked by Mr. Fazlul Haque, Assistant Traffic Officer who detected an excess amount of Rs. 16,20 besides the actual sale proceeds and bag money. The contention of the first party that he was dismissed for alleged Trade Union activities is false and baseless. The accused was charge-sheeted; he was given an opportunity to defend himself in so that he was allowed to adduce 4 witnesses. He was allowed to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. The accused-first-party v as allowed subsistence allowance equivalent to half of his average wages.
5. The first party gave a concocted and false version in his written explanation to the second party while he said that he received Rs. 20 from one of his relatives. But the man concerned stated that he had no relationship with the first-party. His grievance notice was duly considered but there was no ground for recon--sideration. There was a fair and impartial enquiry and so the order of dismissal was justified.
6. Points for determination in this case are:---
(1) Whether the order-of dismissal passed upon the first party ' by the second party is legal and valid?
(2) If the first party is entitled to any relief. ?
7. DECISION Both the points are taken up together for the sake of con--venience. It appears from this case that the first party was dismis--sed from the service of the second party after holding an enquiry for misconduct. The charge against him was that while on the order of the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, the Assistant Traffic Manager Mr. Fazlul Haque held a surprise check of the bag and tickets of the first party regarding the sale proceeds of the day at the depot at Chittagong, an excess amount of Rs. 16'20 was found with the first party. According to rules of the E.P.R.T.C. the delinquent conductor was not supposed to keep any amount in his pocket. If he had' any personal cash, he should have entered it into the Way Bill before he has resumed his duties for the day. It is admitted by the first party that he did not enter the amount of Rs. 16*20 in the Way Bill on that day though he said that he got the money from a relative of his before he went on duty. It makes all the more incumbent on the part of the first party to deposit the amount or to enter the amount in the Way Bill, before he went to resume his duties.There has been a flagrant violation of the rules and the conduct of the E.P.R.T.C. by the first party bus conductor. He could not give any satisfactory explanation of all this. Some tickets were found hidden inside the cigarette packet which was searched out from his pocket by the Guard Commander. He said that the excess money found was given to him by a relative of his named Abu Bakar Siddique. But Abu Bakar Siddique said that he had no relationship with the conductor. P. W. 2 Guard Commander said that the Bus Conductor at the time of recovery of the amount has said that his father gave the money. Now the accused stated that the money was given to him by Abu Bakar Siddique. This Abu Bakar Siddique at one time said that he came to the bus station at 12 a.m. and gave the money 1/IJ hours thereafter in presence of another bus conductor. In cross-examination he said that he came at 8-30 a.m. and said that the money ate gave at ' 2 to 12-30 noon. It further appears that the first party was given a personal hearing. He was given opportunity of cross-examination and adducing his own evidence.
8. He has himself given 'two explanations in details narrating his whole story which has been found inconsistent with the evidence of his witnesses who were examined during the disciplinary proceed-- ing. It therefore appears that all legal formalities were duly observed and there is no defect in the proceeding. The party was found guilty of gross misconduct as he admitted to have attempted to misappropriate an amount of Rs. 16.20 which was the rightful money of the E. P. R. T. C. -He also has violated the fundamental rules of service by keeping the extra amount with him, if his statement is accepted to be correct. For all this reason we find that this application has no leg to stand upon and it should be dismissed.
9. Accordingly it is ordered that this application be dismissed on contest but without costs:-- I have consulted the members who have given their opinion holding that this application should be dismissed, as the first party was found guilty of gross misconduct by the second party in a lawful proceeding.