1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7937/2002. : : Than Singh Vs. RSRTC & Anr. : : Date of Order 18.3.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Ravi Yadav for the petitioner. Mr. R. A. Katta for the respondents. 1. This writ petition has been filed seeks to challenge the order dated 11.9.2002 whereby recovery of a sum of Rs.20,758/- was ordered to be made from the petitioner and it was directed that a sum of Rs.500/- shall be deducted from his salary on every month. Recovery was made on the premise that when the petitioner was on duty as bus conductor of roadways bus he lost one ticket copy and four way bills on 16.8.2002. 2. Shri Ravi Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner immediately lodged the first information report with Police Station, Kama as FIR No.268/02 on 17.8.2002 and police registered a case under Section 379 IPC and started investigation. Copy of the 2 recovery order dated 11.9.2002 has not so far been supplied to him. He came to know about the same when the salary was paid to him mines Rs.500/-. It is submitted that unless the matter was investigated and final report was given by the police, no recovery could be made. Petitioner was neither served with show cause notice nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to him before passing of recovery order. The learned counsel cited the judgment of this Court in Rameshwar Vyas Vs. RSRTC passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No.4515/2000 dated 6.12.2000 and argued that in similar circumstances this Court quashed the recovery order, though living it open to the respondents to pass any other appropriate order. 3. Shri R. A. Katta, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and argued that the respondents have issued standing order with regard to the duties of the bus conductor and, therefore, recovery is required to be made for loss of tickets and other record. It was argued that impugned order dated 11.9.2002 was issued in conformity with the aforesaid standing order. Tickets were valuable possession, therefore, the petitioner could not take their safety so lightly. Tickets were lost due to negligence of 3 the petitioner, therefore, he was singularly responsible for this loss. It was argued that nothing come out in the investigation. It was his argument that there was no necessity of any enquiry or issuing any charge-sheet to the petitioner. The order of recovery has been passed in accordance with the rules of the Corporation and the Standing Order referred to above. 4. Controversy similar to the present one was raised before this Court in Rameshwar (supra) and the learned Single Judge upon hearing the arguments of the parties held that merely because the tickets were lost by the conductor, it cannot be mechanically concluded that the value of the tickets should be taken as loss to the Corporation and recovery order could not be mechanically passed. It was, however, held that the corporation would be free to impose any other suitable and appropriate punishment against the conductor concerned. The following observation made by the learned Single Judge on the aforesaid matter are worth quoting :- “Having heard the learned counsel, I have come to the conclusion that so far as the facts are concerned, they are not in dispute and the only 4 question is as to whether the amount of Rs.16,154/- could be ordered to be recovered on the ground that, that was the face value of the tickets lost. To my mind, it cannot be presumed that the tickets lost shall be returned to have been misused in toto without there being any material on record to show that they were actually misused. It is all right, there was a likelihood of the tickets being misused, against which the precautions have already been taken by the RSRTC by circulating to all concerned that those particular tickets from No.596788604 to 800 of the denomination of Rs.75/- and over and above have been lost. The punishment order is, therefore, vitiated by adoption of a wrong approach by the Disciplinary Automatically. It could not have been mechanically concluded that there was a loss to the corporation of Rs.16,154/- depending on the face value of the tickets. The corporation was free to impose any other suitable and appropriate punishment, but not recovery of the entire amount represented by the face value of the tickets, lost.” This judgment was later followed in SB Civil Writ Petition No.8858/2002 : Kalyan Prasad Sharma Vs. RSRTC Jaipur & Anr. Decided on 9.7.2008. 5 The learned counsel for the respondents though opposed the writ petition but he could not be point out any distinction between the present and the aforesaid cases. In my view also, loss of tickets, which may be valuable possession but that by itself cannot be said to be loss to the corporation of the amount of face value of such tickets. But then, it may be a case of negligence. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.9.2002 is set aside. The respondent-corporation would however be free to pass an appropriate order imposing a suitable punishment on the petitioner as may be deemed appropriate in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid liberty to the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/-