IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.308 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.5.2011 Ashok Kumar -----Appellant. Vs. The Presiding Officer & others -----Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Ms. Anu Chatrath Kapur, Advocate for the appellant. --- 1. Whether the reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest or not? ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge upholding the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court against the appellant. 2. The appellant was employed as Conductor with the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking. During checking on 13.7.1996, it was found that some of the passengers who had boarded the bus and had paid fare had not been issued tickets L.P.A. No.308 of 2011 and the amount collected had been pocketed by the appellant. Accordingly, chargesheet for the misconduct was served on the appellant and inquiry was conducted. On the basis of evidence of the checking staff namely Dev Raj, Chint Ram, Mohinder Singh Saini and Kewal Singh, the charge was held to be established. The disciplinary authority terminated the services of the appellant and departmental appeal against the said order was dismissed. An industrial dispute was raised which was referred for adjudication. The Labour Court held that no interference was called for with the order against the appellant. Learned Single Judge upheld the award of the Labour Court relying upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and another v. Rattan Singh 1977(1) SLR 750. It was held that statements of passengers were not required to be recorded as strict rules of evidence were not applicable to departmental inquiry. The evidence of inspecting staff could be accepted if the same was reliable. The quantum of punishment did not call for interference in view of nature of misconduct. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no possibility of misappropriation, as the bus had not travelled much distance and the Conductor would have issued the tickets in due course. 6. We are unable to accept the submission. In an intra Court appeal, appreciation of evidence on a pure question of fact 2 L.P.A. No.308 of 2011 is not permissible. The departmental inquiry having been duly conducted, fair opportunity having been given to the appellant, the finding of misconduct was not open to challenge unless the same was perverse. Thus, the award of the Labour Court was not liable to be interfered with. In these circumstances, no ground is made out for interference with the order of learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE May 18, 2011 ( RAJESH BINDAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3