1. ' This is an appeal under section 36-D of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 filed by the District Manager, 0. T. S., Multan, against the order of the learned Junior Labour Court, Multan, dated 31st December, 1974, whereby, Ghulam Haider Conductor was directed to be reinstated in service by holding his termination on 4th August, 1974 by the appellant Management as illegal. He was charged by the Management to have defrauded the latter by misappropriating sum of rupee one and 40 (forty) pains through claudestic sale of bus tickets. It was alleged against him that he allowed certain passengers to travel in his bus from Mehboob Wala to Basira, District Muaaffargarh, without giving a clear account of the fares charged by him. The learned Lower Court found that the checking in question was conducted at a short distance from Mehboob Wala and the respondent Conductor could be presumed to be still engaged In the issuing of tickets and no intention to commit the misappropriation could be fairly attributed to him.
2. ' The impugned order can scarcely be accepted after carefully going through the relevant record of domestic enquiry and that of the learned lower Court. Firstly it is no denying the fact that the Bus No, 8682 conducted by the respondent-started from Mehboob Wala for Basira at a distance of about three miles and the bus was checked soon after it had started its journey and that any deficiency in cash in regard to the passengers obtaining the tickets for their journeys could not conclusively be taken as criminal defalcation on the part of the respondent. The bus should have travelled fair distance before it could have been checked. It was contended that Mehboob Wale bus stop being a terminus the respondent was supposed to issue all the tickets and receive the money due on them before the starting of the bus. But this factor was neither mentioned in the charge-sheet not it was brought in the evidence at any stage. No rule was referred to in support of this contention. So the finding of the learned Lower Court cannot be set aside on this point.
3. Secondly it is to be noted that the Inquiry Officer Mr. Kanwar Shamshad, solely, relied on the statement of the time Inspector, Ghulam Akbar, Chandia, without placing on the record any other oral or documentary evidence in support of the prosecution while rejecting a evidence of three defence witnesses, namely, Ghulam Sarwar, Nawaz .d Mansoor All who claimed to have travelled in the bus checked by the traffic Inspector. Thirdly, neither the checker of the bus Ghulam Akbar nor the enquiry Officer Mr. Kanwar Shamshad were examined in the learned Lower Court to afford an opportunity to the respondent to cross-examine them. All these factors must count to hold the proceeding of the domest enquiry as having been prejudicial to the defence of the respondent, Accordingly the impugned order must be upheld as being unexceptionable. The appeal is therefore dismissed. The file may be consigned.