IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 3124 of 2008 (OA No.647/96) Judgment reserved on: 17.8.2010 Date of decision: 31.8.2010 Krishan Chand …….Petitioner. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others …..…Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? Yes For the Petitioner : For the Respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Justice Kuldip Singh, J. The petitioner was charged-sheeted under Rule 14 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965. The inquiry was conducted and thereafter memo, dated 18.11.1991, Annexure A-1¸ was issued by respondent No.3 to petitioner as to why penalty of removal from service be not imposed upon him. Thereafter, office order, dated 24.4.1992, Annexure A-2, was issued by respondent No.3 imposing penalty of removal from service upon the ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the competent authority and dismissal order was communicated to petitioner vide communication, dated 19.10.1992, Annexure A-3. 2. The further facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as conductor on regular basis in the year 1982. The petitioner was served with charge-sheet on 1.8.1990. As per charge-sheet, the petitioner was on duty as conductor in Bus No. HP-38 2405 on 23.2.1990 on Nurpur- Anupgarh route. The bus was inspected by Inspectors at Rai Singh Nagar and 16 passengers were detected travelling in the bus without tickets. The petitioner had also collected the fare from ticket-less passengers, but had not issued tickets to them. The inquiry was conducted. The petitioner examined DW1, Gurnam Singh. 3. The inquiry report was submitted to respondent No.3, disciplinary authority, on 14.11.1991, who issued memo, dated 18.11.1991, Annexure A-1. The petitioner submitted reply to the memo, Annexure A-1. The petitioner was removed from service vide office order, dated 24.4.1992, Annexure A-2. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed and the rejection was communicated to the petitioner vide communication, dated 19.10.1992, Annexure A-3. 4. The petitioner has assailed Annexures A-1, A-2 and A-3 on the grounds that penalty imposed is excessive, the inquiry Officer has solely relied upon the statement of B.S. Katoch, Inspector and has ignored the version of DW1, Gurnam Singh. The Department has produced only B.S. Katoch, Inspector. The other persons, who also checked the bus, were not 3 examined. The action of the respondents imposing penalty of removal from service is arbitrary and the same is the outcome of non-application of mind. The petitioner could not have been removed from service without following the mandatory provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 5. The petition was contested by respondents No.1 to 4 by filing common reply, in which, preliminary objection of limitation has been taken. On merits, it has been submitted that inquiry was conducted in accordance with CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965. The punishment order and appellate orders are just and legal. B.S. Katoch, Inspector, has fully proved the charge against the petitioner. DW1, Gurnam Singh, could not prove that he was travelling in the bus at the relevant time. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner was charge-sheeted and inquiry was conducted under CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965. The punishment order and appellate order have not been assailed on any procedural irregularity. The version of B. S. Katoch, departmental witness, has been believed. DW1, Gurnam Singh, could not establish his presence in the bus at the relevant time. It is not the case of the petitioner that the present case is of ‘no evidence’. The quality of evidence matters and not the quantity of the witnesses examined. In writ petition, evidence cannot be re-appreciated, so also the quantum of punishment more particularly in the facts and circumstances of the present case, wherein he had been previously awarded various punishments in this very same matter of ‘ticketless travel’ for 33 times. . It is not the case of the petitioner that CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 were not applicable in the present case. This 4 being the position, Sections 25-F and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not applicable in the instant case. The action has been taken against the petitioner by the authorities by following due process of law on the basis of material on record. No fault can be found in the inquiry, punishment order, Annexure A-2 and communication of dismissal of appeal vide Annexure A-3, dated 19.10.1992. There is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. The pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. August 31, 2010 (Justice Kuldip Singh), (pankaj) Judge.