IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.18263 of 2006 Date of Decision: 20.11.2006 Darshan Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others. ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present : Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral) While the petitioner was conducting Bus bearing registration No. 9625 from Jalandhar to Amritsar, the same was checked by an Inspector from the office of the Director, State Transport, Punjab, on 14.7.2001. During the course of checking, it was found that the petitioner had taken a sum of Rs.8/- from one of the passengers as fare, but had not issued a ticket to him. The passenger, who was travelling without a ticket asserted the aforesaid factual position, in the presence of the petitioner. The petitioner, after admitting the same, issued the aforesaid passenger an un-punched ticket for a sum of Rs. 8/-, in lieu of fare charged from him. On account of the aforesaid factual position, the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet on 5.10.2001, whereupon a regular departmental enquiry was held against him. Consequent upon the holding of a regular departmental enquiry, the punishing authority, i.e., the Director, State Transport, Punjab, by an order dated 6.7.2005 ordered the compulsory retirement of the petitioner with immediate effect. CWP No. 18263 of 2006 2 The aforesaid order dated 6.7.2005 (Annexure P-6) is subject matter of challenge at the hands of the petitioner. The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the onus to establish his innocence was formally placed on the shoulders of the petitioner. In this behalf, the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the first instance, the onus to prove the guilt of the employee has to be discharged by the employer. It is not possible for us to accept the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, particularly in the background of the facts, as have noticed herein above, namely, that when the petitioner was confronted with the passenger travelling ticket-less, he had acknowledged, that he had taken a sum of Rs.8/- without issuing a ticket to him. Since aforesaid factual position was not contested by the petitioner, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner, that the onus to prove his innocence was placed on his shoulders. In view of the above, we find no merit in the claim raised by the petitioner in the instant writ petition. Dismissed. (J.S. Khehar) Judge November 20, 2006 (S.D. Anand) vkd Judge