MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus DISTRICT MANAGER, PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT. CORPORATION

The appeal captioned above arise from the decision, dated 31st March, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstate ment in service was dismissed.

2. The allegation against the appellant was that he had received fare from six lady passengers but did not issue tickets to them and thus embez zled the amount. The perusal of the file shows that proper opportunity was afforded to the appellant to cross‑examine the witnesses examined in the enquiry and to produce defence. The appellant proposed to give his own statement but did not lead any defence evidence. This is true that the statement of no passengers found without ticket was recorded but it was not necessary since the appellants was duly confronted with the said passengers. In answer to Form TT‑40 he contended that he had not reco vered fare From any passenger and the passenger had falsely stated so. This shows that passengers were enquired in the presence of the appellant and in his presence they bad said that they had paid the fare. The appel late has argued that be did not state in reply to Form TT‑40 that the passengers had falsely deposed against him and that by the word the he meant the checkers, This is wrong. There was no other checker with Mr. Muhammad Siddique, reporter, as he stated in cross. examination before the Enquiry Officer. So, if the appellant meant that the checker had falsely stated, he would have used the word in reply to Form TT‑40 and not. Since he was duly confronted with the passengers on the spot, which is apparent from the reply to Form TT‑40, failure to record the statements of the passengers is not material The appellant has also argued that the passengers had alighted from the bus at Gulab Devi Hospital. whereas Form TT‑40 was given to him at Amar Sidhu, so the allegation that six passengers who got down from the bus at Gulab Devi Hospital were ticket ess is false. This argument ex facie has no force. The appellant was confronted at Gulab Devi Hospital stop but Form TT‑40 was prepared at the next stop in order not to detain the bus. So, the embezzlement was duly proved against the appellant. He was thus rightly dismissed from service.

3. As a result of what has been said above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss the same.

A. B, Appeal dismissed