IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 1117 of 1987 Date of Decision: November 27, 2009 State of Punjab …Appellant Versus Manjit Singh …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the appellant. None for the respondent. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The defendant State of Punjab has filed the instant appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment of reversal passed by the learned lower Appellate Court, dated 22.11.1986. Learned lower Appellate Court has recorded categorical finding that according to the departmental instructions dated 7.2.1977 (Ex. P-2) the principles of natural justice were required to be followed. It has further been held that the departmental instructions are supplementary to the statutory rules which require compliance with the principles of audi alteram partem. The learned lower Appellate Court has further held that the statement of bus passengers regarding payment of bus fare to the conductor was not recorded which is primary evidence to prove the charge of R.S.A. No. 1117 of 1987 misappropriation nor the cash in hand with the conductor proving that the amount collected by him by issuing tickets, exceeded the amount of tickets actually issued. On the basis of aforesaid lacuna in the evidence of the department, the learned Lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion that there was, in fact, no evidence to sustain the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The view of the learned lower Appellate Court is discernible from the following para of the judgment:- “11. ……However, these instructions cannot be allowed to be flouted by the checking staff, more particularly when some action against the plaintiff conductor of the Bus is contemplated. These instructions are based on the principle of Natural Justice. The statement of the bus passengers regarding the payment of the bus fare to the conductor, is a primary evidence to prove the charge of misappropriation of Government amount. The checking of the cash in hand with the conductor, may also go a long way to show as to how much amount, over and above the amount of tickets, issued by him, is being held by him in excess. When neither the statement of the passengers in question are recorded in black and white nor the cash in hand with the conductor is checked, then it is very difficult to hold that the passengers in question have actually paid the fare for their journey, without getting any ticket from the conductor. In any case if the statement of the passengers in question were not recorded by the checking staff at the 2 R.S.A. No. 1117 of 1987 time of checking, then their statement should have been recorded, at least, at the stage of enquiry. However, in the instant case, the said passengers have not been examined. Probably, the checking staff is not even aware about the names and addresses of the said passengers. This inference can be drawn from the fact that at no stage in the enquiry or even in the charge sheet, the names of such passengers have been mentioned. No explanation could be given by Sarvshri Jagir Singh UTI, Amrik Singh, Bakhshish Singh and Prem Sagar Inspectors, who constituted a checking staff and who appeared as witnesses for the department at the stage of enquiry, as to why the statement of the witnesses were not recorded at any stage. The Enquiry Officer has also not given any reasoning as to why the examination of the passengers, in question, was not necessary.” When the appeal came up for admission on 21.4.1987, no question of law was framed nor any such question has been claimed in the grounds of appeal. It appears to me that no question of law much less a substantive question of law would arise for determination in this appeal because there are pure findings of fact, which do not lead to any inference that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer could be sustainable. Even otherwise, the plaintiff- respondent has been re-instated in service and might have also even retired. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) November 27, 2009 JUDGE 3 R.S.A. No. 1117 of 1987 Pkapoor 4