Regular Second Appeal No. 11 of 1986 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 11 of 1986 Date of Decision: August 04, 2009 Punjab State through its Secretary, Transport Department and another ......... Appellant versus Iqbal Chand .......... Respondent Present:- Ms. Ambica Luthera, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants. Ms. Poonam Sambar, Advocate for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court whereby suit filed by the plaintiff challenging the order of punishment of five annual increments vide order dated 18.5.1981 was set aside. The plaintiff-respondent was charge-sheeted on account of travelling of three passengers by collecting the fare but not issuing tickets to them. It was alleged that the plaintiff has embezzled the amount of the government revenue. During the course of inquiry, department examined Sarv Shri Kashmir Singh Inspector, Piara Ram CI and Rattan Chand Inspector. None of the three witnesses have recorded the statements of three persons to whom the tickets were not issued. In view of this fact, the order Regular Second Appeal No. 11 of 1986 [2] of punishment was found to be illegal, unwarranted as it was found that it was a case of no evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and another vs. Rattan Singh, AIR 1977 SC 1512 to contend that in departmental inquiry hearsay evidence is permissible. The witnesses produced by the department have proved the fact that the conductor has collected the fare from the passenger but not issued the tickets. It is argued that the passengers are not required to be examined in departmental proceedings nor their statement are required to be proved by the departmental officials. Though the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant has substance in law but in view of the fact that the order of punishment was set aside in the year 1985 and thereafter the plaintiff has attained the age of superannuation and is now getting pension, it is deemed appropriate not to interfere in the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court at this stage. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. August 04, 2009 ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ks JUDGE