RSA No. 2711 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2711 of 2009 Date of Decision: 22.7.2009 State of Haryana and another ......Appellants Versus Mahavir Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Kulvir Narwal, Additional AG, Haryana. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The defendants are in second appeal, aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff-respondent challenging imposition of penalty of stoppage of two increments was decreed. The plaintiff is a conductor working in the Haryana Roadways, Jhajjar Depot. On 20.6.2001, the bus of which the plaintiff was conductor, was checked and it was found carrying about 100 passengers and some of the passengers were not possessing the tickets. The plaintiff was charge- sheeted for embezzlement of Rs.264/-. The Inquiry Officer returned a finding that the charge has been proved. The Punishing Authority passed an order of placing the plaintiff in the minimum of pay scale for two years and period of suspension was restricted to the subsistence allowance only. RSA No. 2711 of 2009 (2) However, in appeal, it was found that the plaintiff was in the process of issuing tickets. The Appellate Authority did not agree with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer regarding embezzlement of funds, but found that it was beyond his control to issue tickets to all the passengers within a short span of time, keeping in view huge rush in the bus and consequently imposed punishment of stoppage of two increments. It was the said order, which was challenged by the plaintiff before the Civil Court. Both the Courts have returned a finding that about 20-25 passengers were found on the roof top of the bus and that allegations of promptly issuing of the tickets was not made out, as in a distance of two kilometers, the plaintiff could not issue tickets to such a large number of passengers. The findings recorded by the Courts below is a possible finding of fact on the basis of basis of evidence on record. Such finding is sought to be disputed by way of re-appreciation of evidence. It could not be pointed out that any evidence has been misread or not taken into consideration. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (Hemant Gupta) 22-07-2009 Judge ds