IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CM No.3226 and 3227 C of 2009 and RSA No.139 of 1991 Date of decision: 17.4.2009 Prem Singh -----Appellant Vs. State of Punjab & another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL Present:- Mr. G.S.Bhatia, Advocate for the appellant. ORDER: 1. Heard. 2. Application has been filed for restoration of appeal, which was dismissed in default. There is delay of 1464 days. The ground for restoration is that the appellant had engaged Shri J.C.Verma, Senior Advocate and Shri Dinesh Kumar, Advocate. Shri J.C.Verma was elevated to the Bench and Shri Dinesh Kumar, Advocate started separate practice and thereafter did not attend the matter. 3. Without expressing any opinion on the acceptability of ground for restoration or condonation of RSA No.139 of 1991 (O&M) delay either way, in the interest of justice, application for recall of order dismissing the appeal in default is allowed. 4. Heard on merits. 5. The second appeal arises from a suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff-appellant against order dated 18.6.1986 by which his services were terminated based on findings in a report of the Enquiry Officer appointed to enquire into the charge of misappropriation. The plaintiff-appellant was employed as a conductor with Punjab Roadways. The allegation was made that on 24.1.1986, checking was done by two Inspectors who found that 15 passengers were travelling in Bus No.8821 on Amritsar-Dhianpur route from whom the plaintiff had realized a sum of Rs.15.60 without issuing any ticket and had, thus, committed misconduct. The trial court held that the report of Enquiry Officer was based on statement of two Inspectors Jaswant Singh and Mohinder Singh and the report of the Enquiry Officer could not, thus, be held to be without evidence. Contention that the Inspectors had not 2 RSA No.139 of 1991 (O&M) recorded statements of passengers and this vitiated the finding of the Enquiry Officer was rejected. On appeal, finding of the trial court was affirmed relying upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Rattan Singh, 1977 SLR 750 = AIR 1977 SC 1512, wherein, it was held in paras 3 and 4 that recording of statements of passengers could not be insisted upon for accepting the version of an Inspector and evidence of the Inspector itself was sufficient for recording a finding by the Enquiry Officer. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even though, hearsay evidence could be accepted, evidence of Inspector of Flying squad could not be accepted without recording statements of passengers, particularly, when cash was not checked and since co-employee to assist the plaintiff was not there. The same contention has been considered and rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 3 RSA No.139 of 1991 (O&M) the above judgment. There is, thus, no merit in the contention. 8. In view of the fact that the judgment of the lower appellate court is based on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no substantial question of law arises. 9. The appeal is dismissed. April 17, 2009 (Adarsh Kumar Goel) ‘gs’ Judge 4