IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 93 of 2011 (S/B) Uttarakhand Transport Corporation & Others … Petitioners Versus V.K. Sharma … Respondent Smt. Indu Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Dinesh Gahtori, Advocate, for the respondent. Date of Judgment : 24.5.2011 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) In the revised call, we waited for learned Counsel for the petitioners to appear. After sometime, the junior Counsel appeared. She only submitted that the Senior Counsel engaged by her client would argue. We have no time to wait for the Senior Counsel to come before us and to make us grateful by advancing arguments. 2. Respondent was a Conductor in the employment of the petitioner. In a chargesheet, it was alleged that by manipulating the way-bill, the respondent has misappropriated Rs. 5433/- of the petitioner. That chargesheet was enquired into, which resulted in an order of dismissal. For good reasons recorded, the Public Services Tribunal, Uttarkhand at Dehradun has set aside the said dismissal order. Hence, this writ petition. 2 3. As aforesaid, no argument was advanced before us. We have considered the averments made in the writ petition and we have not been able spot any contention in the writ petition, which has any substance in relation to the dispute in question. The fact remains, to which there appears to be no dispute, that in terms of the arrangement made by the petitioner, respondent collected way-bill and tickets from the Clerk in the employment of the petitioner and returned to the Clerk of the petitioner the way-bill, unsold tickets and the value of the sold tickets. At the time when this was tendered to the Clerk, Clerk accepted the same and found no discrepancy. After eleven months, it was purported to be contended in the chargesheet that there was manipulation in the way- bill and by reason of such manipulation, respondent had misappropriated Rs. 5433/- of the petitioner i.e. he sold tickets worth Rs. 5433/-, but the same was not handed over to the Clerk of the petitioner. The same was purported to have been achieved as in the way-bill, it was not indicated that those tickets were handed over to the respondent. That was said to have been achieved by manipulating the way-bill. Unfortunately, no attempt was made to bring the same to the notice of the Tribunal or of this Court. No attempt was made to establish before the Tribunal nor any attempt has been made to establish before this Court that while returning the way-bill, unsold tickets and the value of the sold tickets, the respondent had taken advantage of the manipulated way-bill. That being the situation, the writ petition is utterly meritless and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 24.5.2011 24.5.2011 Prabodh 3