VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

662 DECISION - 324
each. Three other persons were going to village kotli and had paid
fare to the Conductor at the rate of Rs. 1.20 paise each. The
Conductor was thus alleged to have received Rs. 23.10 p from the
aforesaid 13 passengers but had issued them no tickets. On a report
having been made by the checking staff, the General Manager
ordered departmental inquiry on two charges, namely embezzlement
of a sum of Rs. 23.10 p and intentional failure to issue tickets to 42
passengers. The inquiry was conducted by Shri R.S. Sharma from
the office of the Divisional Manager, Transport Department, Jalandhar.
The charges were held established. After show cause notice, the
punishing authority, the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Batala,
removed the Conductor from service by order dated 30-3-1985. The
appeal filed by him was dismissed by the Divisional Manager,
Transport Department, Jalandhar on 13-12-1985.
In a suit filed by the delinquent, the trial court held that the
orders of the disciplinary authority dated 30-3-85 and of the appellate
authority dated 13-12-85 are not illegal, null and void. The appeal
was dismissed by the Additional District Judge and thereupon, he
filed a second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Before the High Court, one of the contentions was that there
was no evidence in support of the charge and the finding of the Inquiry
Officer thus stood vitiated. The High Court observed that at the inquiry,
both the Inspectors who carried out the checking were examined.
They gave a complete account of the checking carried out by them
in the bus in which the plaintiff was on duty as a conductor. They
deposed about 13 passengers having stated before them that they
had paid the fare but had not been issued tickets by the Conductor.
In cross-examination, there was no suggestion of any personal
animosity between the plaintiff and the punishing authority i.e. the
General Manager or between the plaintiff and the checking staff. It
was submitted that the Inspectors who carried out the checking failed
to record the statements of any of the passengers and especially
those who claimed to have paid the fare to the plaintiff without