CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9902 of 1995 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9902 of 1995 DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 7, 2010 Udhey Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH. PRESENT: Mr. C.L. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in Haryana Roadways in the year 1988. On 8.5.1989, he was detailed on duty in delux bus on route from Delhi to Shimla. The bus stopped at Chandigarh for half an hour. The petitioner claims to have given a call for all the passengers to buy tickets, in case some one had not done so. As per the petitioner, he had counted the passengers and found the number correct as per the vavel voucher . The bus was checked by Inspectors at Dharampur and one lady was found traveling without ticket, though number of passengers were found to be correct. As per the petitioner, the lady passenger admitted her fault and paid 10 times penalty fare from Chandigarh to Dharampur. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9902 of 1995 -2- The inspectors took unpunched tickets from the petitioner for a sum of Rs.23/-. The Inspectors, however, filed report against the petitioner for having colluded with the passenger and for misappropriating Government money. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 26.6.1989. The departmental inquiry was ordered. The petitioner was transferred from Delhi to Chandgiarh. Show cause notice ultimately was issued to him after completion of inquiry on 6.1.1992. The petitioner had submitted his reply to the show cause notice. He was also afforded opportunity of personal hearing. As per the petitioner, the General Manager left him with reprimand and with the warning that he would be under observation for the period of 6 months. Order vide which the petitioner was suspended, however, was revoked. The petitioner complains that thereafter, the Traffic Manager or other inspectors used to exploit him and became inimical towards him. In the meantime, the General Manager was transferred and new General Manager took over the charge. The old show cause notice issued to the petitioner in the year 1992, which in fact has been earlier disposed of by reprimanding the petitioner, was racked up and the impugned order of terminating the services of the petitioner was passed on 27.8.1993. The petitioner appealed against the same on 10.10.1993. When the appeal was not being decided, the petitioner filed CWP No.312/1995 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the respondents to decide his appeal within a period of 2 months. The appellate authority then dismissed CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9902 of 1995 -3- the appeal on 19.5.1995. Ultimately, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on 10.6.1995. The writ petition was admitted on 13.3.1996. Reply is filed. The respondents would resist the relief claimed in the writ petition. It is stated that regular inquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the charge levelled against him were duly approved. Reference is made to the inquiry proceedings to urge that it was a clear case of connivance of the petitioner with the passenger as otherwise the passenger could not have traveled without ticket in the bus, which was a deluxe bus and having 30 passengers. It is, accordingly, prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made detailed reference to the finding of the inquiry officer and also to the part of the evidence which had come on record before the inquiry officer. In this regard, the petitioner had questioned one of the witnesses if he had taken any money from the passenger. The witness had answered that if it had been so, the same was required to be reflected in the report. While explaining the aspect that no statement of the passenger was recorded, it was stated that since the passenger had paid 10 times penalty, there was no need to record the statement of the passenger. By referring to these questions answers, counsel contends that 10 times fare penalty in fact was paid by the passenger, which would be an indication that this was not a case of connivance, but would show that the passenger had travelled without ticket without the knowledge of the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9902 of 1995 -4- petitioner. On the other hand, Mr. Nehra would refer to the response given by one of the witness i.e. Assistant Inspector, which replied in answer to a question addressed to him that whether it was a case of fraud or misappropriation. This witness had answered that the passenger had admitted her fault and 10 times penalty was paid by the conductor. Report of the inquiry annexed with the writ petition, has been perused by me. Basically, the submission as being advanced is to seek appreciation of the evidence and then reach a conclusion that fraud or misappropriation is not proved in this case. The charge as levelled against the petitioner was not of the fraud. It was alleged that either it is a case of misappropriating the Government money amounting to Rs.40/- or for negligent performance of duty in this regard. The finding by the inquiry officer is that the passenger was found travelling without ticket with the connivance of the petitioner, so he is as much guilty as the passenger and this was thus, a case of negligence. Negligence was the one part of the allegations made in the charge. It will be beyond the scope of Court to re-appreciate the evidence and give a different finding. Order of termination was made in the year 1995 and acquired finality in the year 1995. Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere in this case. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. October 7, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE