' The two appeals captioned above emerge from the decision dated 20-6-1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,1, Lahore, whereby Muhammad Tufail (hereinafter called the respondent) was directed to be re-instated in service without back benefits. The respondent has challenged the impugned decision to the extent of claiming back benefits, whereas the District Manager, PRTC (hereinafter described as the appellant) has challenged the direction of reinstatement of the respondent in service. Since both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The allegation against the respondent, for which he was dismissed from service, was that he had recovered fare from 12 male passengers but had not issued tickets to them. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that although no without ticket passenger was examined during the inquiry, nor the statement of any such passenger was recorded at the time of checking, but since the respondent was confronted with the without ticket passenger, as is mentioned in Form TT-40, and the respondent had not given any satisfactory answer, he was rightly dismissed from service.
This is true that in TT-40 it is mentioned that the respondent was confronted with the without ticket passengers. In reply to Form TT-40 the respondent did not belie the assertion that he was confronted with the without ticket passengers. He said that he had not recovered any fare from any passengers. Since the passengers had in the presence of the respondent given information to the checkers that they had paid bus fare to the respondent, recording of the evidence of the said witnesses at the time of checking was not necessary. If the respondent was of the opinion that the passengers did not make any statement, he should have examined them in defence during the inquiry or before the learned lower Court. But there are other defects for which the order of dismissal has been rightly set aside. Although there is no provision in Standing Order 15(4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 that second show-cause notice be given, but since in transport cases this is an old practice that a second show-cause notice is served, this practice has the force of rules. In the present case, no doubt, second show-cause notice was given but it was served upon the respondent a day after he was removed from service. He was, therefore, condemned unheard. Second show-cause notice is Exh. R-7. It was for 27-5-1986 and was despatched on 21-5- 1986 as is evident from postal receipt Exh. R-10. According to the respondent, it reached him on 28- 5-1986. No A.D. Receipt was produced to show that second show-cause notice had reached the respondent before the date fixed for hearing. R.W. 2, who was examined on .The point, did not say when it actually reached the respondent. The statement of the respondent to the effect that second show-cause notice reached him on 28-5-1986 thus does not stand controverted. The respondent, therefore, was condemned unheard. No inquiry notice for the. Date on which inquiry was held was served by the Inquiry Officer who held the inquiry. The respondent deposed that he received two inquiry notices and he had appeared before the authority but no inquiry was started in his presence and that thereafter he did not receive any other inquiry notice. The two witnesses examined by the appellant did not say anything in this respect, nor made reference to any inquiry notice which may have been served upon the respondent. Since service of inquiry notice was not proved, there was no justification in holding ex parte inquiry. In these circumstances, the learned lower Court was justified in setting aside the order of dismissal and directing the reinstatement of the respondent in service.
3. So far as back benefits are concerned, the learned lower Court has said that the respondent was guilty of dereliction of duties since he failed to check the passengers while they were alighting down from the bus. Failure on the part of the respondent to recover bus fare when the passengers were getting down from the bus did not amount to any misconduct. If the allegation had been that he had at that time realized the fare and misappropriated the same, of course the position would have been different. As the allegation was not that when the passengers were getting down from the bus the respondent had realized the fare and did not account for it: rather the case which had not been proved against him was that when the bus was checked, twelve passengers were found ticketless from whom the respondent had realized the fare, the respondent, had been wrongly disallowed back benefits.
4. As a result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed and accepting the appeal of the respondent, the impugned decision is modified and the respondent is allowed full back benefits.