AWARD Feroze Nana Ghulamally (Chairman).--The applicant was a conductor on the Dadu-Sukkur route and by this application seeks re-instatement to his permanent employment with the respondent with whom he has been serving for the last six years.
2. The case against the applicant on the basis of which he was served with a charge-sheet on 14th pf May, 1968, was that the checking party consisting of Muhammad Hashim and Mr. Abdul Qudus Abbasi checked the applicant's bus on the 9ch of May, 1968, between Dadu-Makdoom Pilwal that the checking party discovered 27 passengers in the bus without tickets of whom 14 had paid their fares to the applicant without any ticket being issued to them and that 13 passengers had not paid their fares to him. A T. T. 40 form was issued to the applicant by Mr. Muhammad Hashim and the applicant explained there at the spot that it was correct that he had realised fare from 14 passengers but that was on account of competition he had delayed in issuing tickets to them and was indeed, in the process of recovering fare from the remaining 13 passengers when the checking party boarded his bus.
3. We consider it extremely for the purpose of this case to note that the defence of the applicant had been consistent from the day of the incidect as to the matter of ticketless passengers in the bus and those from whom the fare had not been realised, the explanation given for the same, forthwith.
4. After the charge-sheet was issued to the applicant Mr. Muhammad Murad was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry was conducted in the presence of the applicant in the course of which Mr. Muhammad Hashim and Mr. Abdul Qudus Abbasi of the checking party were examined. The Enquiry Officer's report also shows that the applicant produced three witnesses in his defence. These were passengers to whom tickets have been issued and who stated that the applicant was in the process of issuing tickets to the other passengers when the checking party boarded the bus at the bus stand at Dadu.
5. The defence of the applicant has also been that there was stiff competition on this route and in his reply dated 26th of May, 1968, to the charge-sheet issued to him, the application detailed the difficulties experienced on the Sukkur- Dadu route that he had to call for passengers on account of stiff competition from private buses and that when the bus was full they had to start immediately and he was performing bis duties when the checking party boarded his bus.
6. The applicant has examined himself in this Court in support of his application. The evidence on behalf of the respondent consists of the testimony of Mr, Muhammad Hashim and Mr. Muhammad Murad, the Enquiry Amanullah v. Road Transport Corpn. (Feroze Nam Ghulamally, Chairman) Officer, the latter having produced all the papers of the enquiry including the evidence examined before him and his report.
7. This Court will normally not sit in appeal over the findings of anl Enquiry Officer unless it is shown that the enquiry was not held properly orL that the findings, on the basis of which the order terminating services of theP applicant was passed by the Disirict Manager is perverse. We observe that the District Manager Das not directed his attention to the very fair and impartial report of the Enquiry Officer after the examining the evidence before him. We notice that the enquiry officer in his report has stated that the prosecution had failed to prove the checking point where the conductor and his bus had been checked. The applicant had given a consistent and reasonable explanation supported by the evidence that there was keen competition by private buses and that in a bus full of 50 passengers he was in the process of realising the fare from them when the checking party arrived, that of the 27 ticketless passengers 14 had paid him their fares but he had not issued tickets to them and he had yet to realise fare from the 13 remaining passengers. If the applicant was dishonest and had the opportunity to do so he would have realised the fare from all the 27 passengers. There is another aspect of this case i. e. as stated in the Enquiry Officer's report which is an additional factor in favour of the applicant in that after checking he had issued tickets to two passengers who had boarded the bus from Phafak Dadu and Mori. Both these stoppages are being between Makhdoom Dilawal and Dadu. Besides, there is the testimony of the three passengers examined to support the defence of the applicant that he had issued tickets to them and was in the process of issuing fuither tickets to the other passengers when checked.
8. We do not wish to enter into the further details of the case because it is obvious to us as the basis of the circumstances that although the applicant did appear in the enquiry and participated in it, that the case against him was not proved beyond reasonable doubts and that the comments of the Eenquiry Officer that action should be taken against him merely because he had not fulfilled his official duties of having issued tickets to all the passengers, was not justified. In our opinion as stated earlier the explanation of the applicant is reasonable and should have been given the necessary consideration.
9. We also note with regret that the findings of the District Manager terminating the services of the applicant are certainly without justification apart from the established position that the applicant was not heard in person before the order terminating his services was passed and in spite of Exh. P. 3 which is the show-cause notice issued by the District Manager to the applicant before pissing the final and impugned order. If the applicant asked for copies of the evidence examined in the enquiry and especially for a copy of the Enquiry Officer's report he was entitled to do so to enable him to make his submissions before the District Manager against the findings of the Eoquiry Officer. Natural justice requires that a copy of the Enquiry Officer's report would have been given to the applicant and that he should have been heard in person before the impugned order of termination was passed.
10. We, therefore, without any hesitation conclude that the application must be granted and order that the applicant be re-instated with full benefits! and on full pay for the period he has been under suspension or since the dayj^ of the termination of his services as from the date of this order. PAKISTAN LABOUR CASES1975 666