DECISION ' This is an appeal by P.I.A. Corporation against Ramp Operator Tajammul Hussain. ThP grievance petition of Tajammul Hussain has been allowed by the Fourth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi and he has directed P.I.A. Corporation to re-instate Tajammul Hussain in service with full back benefits.
Against this order the Corporation has filed this appeal.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondent was appointed as Ramp Operator in June, 1986. On 13- 6-1993 he came for duty to the Airport at 21-15 hours. His duty was however to commence at 23-00 hours so while passing through the Motor Transport Unit of the Airport he found a Toyota Van with its engine running. This was diesel vehicle. He was therefore tempted to utilize his spare time by having joy ride. He went and sat in the driver's seat and drove the vehicle towards his place of duty but while driving he came off the Pakka road and his vehicle fell into a ditch and was considerably damaged. His taking the vehicle, driving it and damaging it was unauthorized. He was therefore suspended from service and given show-cause notice. His defence was that it was not the case of negligent driving but the head light and the indicator light were out of order and that was the cause of the accident. The evidence however was that no vehicle was coming from opposite side but a vehicle was parked on the road side and to clear that vehicle. He got down from the Pakka road to the Katcha portion and the vehicle slipped in the Katcha and fell into a ditch. If he had first checked the speed of the vehicle before swerving his vehicle to the Katcha portion, the accident could have been avoided. The Enquiry Officer therefore found him guilty and on his report the respondent was dismissed from service.
3. It is the case of Mr. Ali Ahmed Jan Bangush on behalf of the respondent that it was practice in those days for the Ramp Operators to drive towards their point of duty from the Motor Transport Unit by whatever car was found available. That the mishap was a pure accident and there was no negligence on the part of the driver.
4. The very act of taking the vehicle unauthorisedly and driving the same in a careless manner amounts to misconduct for which the respondent is himself responsible. He has therefore been rightly found guilty of misconduct by the Enquiry Officer- His conviction for misconduct is sufficient cause for his dismissal. The judgment of the Labour Court is accordingly set aside and the appeal is allowed.