IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7694 of 2008 Date of decision: May 9, 2008 Balbir Singh ....petitioner versus Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ors. ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present: Mr.Kasturi Lal, Advocate for the petitioner --- HEMANT GUPTA,J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh on 12.07.2007 (Annexure P-12) whereby an Original Application filed by the petitioner against the order of termination of his services vide order dated 31.07.2002 and order in appeal dated 30.09.2005, was dismissed. The petitioner was charge-sheeted on 21.11.1996. The Article of charge included allegation of travelling of 14 passengers without ticket and collection of Rs.28/- i.e.@Rs.2/- as fare from said passengers: travelling of 2 passengers who had been issued old tickets but the petitioner having collected Rs.10/- each as fare and travelling of 7 other passengers to whom tickets were issued from the book which was not entered in the way bill of the Conductor and the petitioner having collected Rs.21/- from the said passengers. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to go into the allegations levelled against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer found the charges proved and after giving an opportunity to show cause against the findings recorded, an order of termination of the services was passed. The said order has been affirmed in the appeal as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Contd... Civil Writ Petition No.7694 of 2008 -2- order of punishment passed, is not tenable as the best evidence i.e. the passengers have not been examined as a witness in the Departmental Proceedings. It is contended that the Departmental Proceedings are based upon the testimony of the Inspector which is not the best evidence and therefore the entire enquiry proceedings stand vitiated. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Circular dated 07.02.2002, wherein instructions were issued to the Inspectors/Flying Squads to record the statement of passengers and record the observations on the way bill and then make out the case of fraud against the Conductor. It is contended that since the Inspector has not carried out the instructions mentioned in the Circular, therefore the charges levelled against the petitioner cannot be said to be proved. We do not find any merit in the stand of the petitioner. A Full Bench of this Court in " The State of Haryana and others versus Shri Ram Chander" 1976 PLR 842, held as under: "...We venture to illustrate the position as follows: if half a dozen persons go to the office of the Haryana Roadways and complain that the conductor of a certain bus collected fare from them but did not issue tickets to them and if later on the passengers are not examined as witnesses, a finding of guilt based solely upon the complaint given by the passengers would amount to a finding based on pure hearsay and would involve violation of principles of natural justice. On the other hand, where a bus is checked and it is found that tickets have not been issued to serveral passengers and the passengers state in the presence of the conductor that they paid the fare, the enquiry officer would be justified in acting upon the evidence of the checkers stating these facts even though the passengers themselves are not examined as witnesses. A finding of guilt arrived at by him would not be based on pure hearsay. It would be based on(1) the evidence of the checker that he found passengers travelling without tickets and (2) the statements made by the passengers to the checker at the time of checking. The second item of evidence alone would be hearsay but it would be hearsay of high probative value because of the circumstance that statements were made in the presence of the conductor and on the spot. In such a case it cannot be said that the enquiry officers findings are based on pure hearsay or hearsay of unreliable nature...." Civil Writ Petition No.7694 of 2008 -3- In State of Haryana and another versus Rattan Singh AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1512, none of the 11 passengers were examined in the domestic enquiry, therefore, an argument was raised that the the non- examination of the passengers in the domestic enquiry vitiates the enquiry proceedings. The Court held to the following effect: "However, the courts below misdirected themselves, perhaps, in insisting that passengers who had come in and gone out should be chased and brought before the tribunal before a valid finding could be recorded. The 'residuum' rule to which counsel for the respondent referred, based upon certain passages from American Jurisprudence does not go to that extent nor does the passage from Halbsbury insist on such rigid requirement. The simple point is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence-not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular court proceedings but in a fair commonsense way as men of understanding and worldly wisdom will accept. Viewed in this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in support of a finding is certainly available for the court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record." Still, later, while considering the departmental instructions of recording of statement of passengers, the Court held to the following effect: "Reliance was placed, as earliler stated, on the non-compliance with the departmental instruction that statements of passengers should be recorded by Inspectors. These are instructions of prudence, not rules that bind or vitiate in the violation. In this case, the Inspector tried to get the statements but the passengers declined, the psychology of the latter in such circumstances being understandable, although may not be approved. We cannot hold that merely because statements of passengers were not recorded the order that followed was invalid. Likewise, the re-evaluation of the evidence on the strength of co- conductor's testimony is a matter not for the court but for the administrative tribunal. In conclusion, we do not think the courts below were right in over-turning the finding of the domestic tribunal." In view of the aforesaid judgments which have been followed consistently including "Cholan Roadways Ltd. Versus Contd.... Civil Writ Petition No.7694 of 2008 -4- G.Thirugnanasambandam", AIR 2005 SC 570 & Divisional Controller, KSRTC(NWKRTC) versus A.T.Mane, AIR 2004 SC 4761, we do not find any irregularity and illegality in the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Consequently, the present writ is dismissed in limine. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (MOHINDER PAL) JUDGE May 9,2008 neenu