Regular Second Appeal No. 1840 of 1995 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1840 of 1995 Date of Order: January 8th, 2009 Gurdeep Singh ....Appellant Versus Pepsu Road Transport and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr.A.S.Klar, Advocate for the appellant. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The appellant lays challenge to a judgment and decree dated 22.03.1995, passed by the Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, accepting the appeal filed by the respondent and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 01.12.1992, passed by the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Kapurthala. The appellant was working as a conductor with the PEPSU Road Transport Corporation, Patiala. Madan Lal, Chief Inspector and Ram Gopal, Inspector checked the tickets issued by the appellant and discovered that the appellant had not issued tickets to two passengers travelling from Verka to Batala and had not issued tickets to four passengers travelling from Amritsar to Batala. It also transpired that the appellant had issued tickets of a lower denomination to thirteen passengers travelling from Amritsar to Batala, though, full fare had been charged. A charge sheet was served upon the appellant and after considering his reply, an enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the charges levelled against the appellant. The enquiry officer submitted a report indicting the Regular Second Appeal No. 1840 of 1995 -2- appellant for defrauding the Corporation of Rs.36.05 paise. Vide order dated 01.03.1989, the punishing authority passed an order dismissing the appellant from service. The appellant filed a suit challenging his dismissal by inter-alia alleging that the charges levelled against him were false, the checking staff did not record the statement of any passenger and in fact used unpunched and unused tickets to falsely implicate him. In response the respondents prayed for dismissal of the suit by alleging that as departmental proceedings and the order of punishment did not suffer from any error, the appellant, therefore, had been rightly punished. After considering the pleadings, the learned trial court framed the following issues:- "1. Whether impugned order, dated 1.3.89 for removal of service of the plaintiff passed by DGM is null and void and without jurisdiction on the grounds referred to in paras 8.9 and 10 of the plaint?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration and consequent relief as prayed for ?OPP 3. Relief." The trial court after considering the dispute in its entirety decreed the suit and quashed the order of punishment by holding that there was no material to indict the appellant. It was also held that departmental proceedings stood vitiated for failure to supply the list of documents. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment, the respondents filed an appeal. The first appellate court accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the suit. The first appellate court held that as all relevant documents were supplied to the appellant and as the fraud perpetuated by the appellant stood established, the view taken by the trial court that there was no evidence Regular Second Appeal No. 1840 of 1995 -3- against the appellant was incorrect. Counsel for the appellant submits that departmental proceedings stand vitiated for failure of the respondents to record the statements of passengers. It is further argued that there is no evidence on record to establish that the appellant issued tickets of lesser denomination than the fare collected. In the absence of the statements of passengers, the enquiry and the order of punishment were rightly set aside by the trial court. Reliance for the above arguments is placed upon judgments of this court in State of Haryana v. Bikar Singh, 2001(4) S.C.T., 936 and Didar Singh v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda, 2003(3) SCT 334. It is further argued by making a reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2000 (3) Supreme Court Cases, page 450 titled as U.P.State Road Transport Corpn. v. Mahesh Kumar Mishra and others, that even if it is presumed that the appellant pocketed excess fare while issuing tickets of lesser denomination the punishment of dismissal being grossly disproportionate to the offence, the appellant should be awarded a lesser punishment. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that it is not necessary, to record the statements of passengers as even otherwise the charge against the appellant is one of issuance of tickets of lesser denomination than the fare collected and not failure to issue tickets. The charge has been established from the unpunched tickets and the cash in hand. It is further submitted that as charge against the appellant stand fully established, the punishment of dismissal is just and proper and should therefore, be upheld. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. The appellant was held guilty for issuing tickets of a lesser denomination than the fare charged. The charge has been established by Regular Second Appeal No. 1840 of 1995 -4- reference to the unpunched tickets and the cash in hand. The failure to record statements of passengers is irrelevant, as the appellant has not been punished for failure to issue tickets. The findings recorded by the first appellate court upholding the departmental proceedings do not suffer from any error. The appellant's prayer for award of a lesser punishment is based upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P.State Road Transport Corpn. v. Mahesh Kumar Mishra and others (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the exercise of descretion by the Hon'ble High Court, in reducing the punishment of dismissal to one of reinstatement with 1/4th back wages. The exercise of discretion by the Hon'ble High court was upheld on facts and no general rule of law was enunciated that where a conductor is found guilty of issuing tickets of a lesser denomination than the fare charged he cannot be dismissed from service. The charge of having defrauded the Corporation stands established and, therefore, any equitable consideration would not enure to the appellant's benefit. As a result, I find no reason to hold that the punishment of dismissal is in any manner disproportionate to the offence charged and proved. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, as no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. January 8 th 2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE