IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16777 of 2010 Date of decision: 17.9.2010 Union Territory, Chandigarh and others …..Petitioners versus The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Puneet Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) By filing this writ petition, order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 29.9.2009 has been impugned. Counsel for the petitioner heard. Record reveals that against respondent No.2, it was an allegation that to the two passengers, who boarded the bus from Hisar to Uklana, the tickets were punched at stage 3, whereas those tickets should have been punched at stage 1 and 3. On account of that, it was inferred that respondent No.2 had an intention to take back the tickets from those passengers and re-issue the same to other passengers who may have boarded the bus at stage 3. On the basis of above said allegation, enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and after enquiry, the enquiry officer exonerated him, however, the punishing authority differed with the report of the enquiry officer and after notice, major penalty of stopping of three Civil Writ Petition No.16777 of 2010 increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon him. Respondent No.2 went in appeal. Punishment awarded was decreased to stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect. Thereafter, respondent No.2 went to respondent No.1. His application was accepted and he was exonerated of the charges leveled against him, by observing as under:- “A perusal of the charge sheet would show that there is no allegation of “negligence” against the applicant. The disciplinary authority in the show cause notice has recorded that in view of the admission of the applicant the charge cannot be said to have not been proved. The applicant never admitted to any charge. What he has stated from beginning to end is that punching of the ticket was not proper due to a speed-breaker on the road and due to minor movement of spectacles due to his weak eyesight. This cannot be taken to be an admission of the applicant by any stretch of imagination. The orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority go to show that various pleas taken by the applicant in his defence have not been considered at all. Once there is a categorical finding by the enquiry officer, on the basis of evidence on record, that the tickets in question could not be re-issued, it was expected of the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority to have contradicted this finding on the basis of some evidence or material. They cannot record a finding on the basis of conjectures and surmises, without giving any reason in support of their conclusion. In the face of a clear-cut finding of the enquiry officer that no embezzlement could take place in the facts and circumstances of the case, 2 Civil Writ Petition No.16777 of 2010 there was no occasion to prove any charge or impose a penalty upon the applicant. Had the concerned authorities taken into consideration the defence plea of the applicant that punching was not done properly due to speed-breaker and due to minor movement of spectacles; they would certainly have come to a different conclusion. The possibility of commission of such error due to speed breaker cannot be ruled out. Thus, the impugned order, Annexure A-1 is held to be non-speaking and not sustainable.” We are of the opinion that order passed is perfectly justified. It is not in dispute that tickets were recovered from the passengers. It is also not in dispute that only charge of negligence was proved against respondent No.2. It is an admitted fact that charge of embezzlement has not been proved against respondent No.2. So far as negligence is concerned, no such charge sheet was issued to him. No enquiry was instituted. Otherwise also, explanation given by respondent No.2 appears to be justified. The findings against respondent No.2 were based on a suspicion that he had an intention to take back the tickets from the passengers and re-issue the same to other passengers who may board the bus at stage 3. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 17.09.2010 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 3