PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION Ltd. vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQ
The Punjab Urban Transport Corporation Limited sought leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed its constitutional writ petition arising from disciplinary action taken against Muhammad Rafiq, the respondent. The respondent, a conductor, was found guilty of misconduct for pocketing fare amounts without issuing tickets. The Labour Court had interpreted the inquiry report as an exoneration and ordered reinstatement with full back benefits, a view upheld by the High Court. The core legal question concerns whether the facts found in the inquiry report constitute punishable misconduct and whether the lower tribunals misread the evidence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions regarding the interpretation of the inquiry report and the nature of the misconduct.
- Whether facts found in an inquiry report constitute misconduct punishable with the penalty imposed?
- Whether the lower judicial forum committed a misreading of evidence regarding the findings of the inquiry report?
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from Order dated 22nd October, 1984 of the Lahore High Court, whereby a Constitutional writ petition filed by the Punjab Urban Transport Corporation Limited (the petitioner herein) arising out of a disciplinary action against Muhammad Rafiq respondent, was dismissed.
2. The petitioner had taken strong disciplinary action against the respondent on a finding that he was guilty of misconduct. The matter was taken up by the Labour Court which interpreted the Inquiry Report against the petitioner as one of exoneration and the respondent was ordered to be reinstated with full back benefits. The petitioner having failed up to the High Court has now sought leave to appeal.
3. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court when dealing with the Inquiry Report observed as follows: "In other words, absolving the petitioner from the charge of dishonesty the Enquiry Officer had found him guilty of an attempt of dishonesty."
4. The accusation against the respondent was that he had pocketed the amount realized from sale of tickets without issuing the proper tickets to the passengers of an omnibus, whereas he was serving as a conductor.
5. After hearing the learned counsel we consider it a fit case, inter alia, to examine whether the facts found in the Inquiry Report, which have not been disturbed do not constitute such misconduct a would be punishable with the penalty imposed on the respondent as also, the question whether the impugned orders do not suffer from misreading of evidence.