STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SUKHDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The allegation against respondent-plaintiff was for misappropriating sum of Rs. 2.40p. In a raid conducted on the bus being conducted by the respondent-plaintiff by flying squad, 3 passengers were found getting down from a bus without ticket from whom the respondent-plaintiff had charged 80p each. Departmental inquiry was held and thereafter the order terminating the services was passed. The suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court by observing that proper inquiry was conducted and finding the respondent-plaintiff guilty, the impugned order was passed. In an appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff, the First appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court mainly on the ground that the witnesses, who were found to be travelling without ticket after having paid the money were not examined. Observation made in the case of State of Haryana v. Madan Lal in RSA No. 146 of 1973 decided on 12.04.1983 was relied upon to hold that minimum that ought to have been done was that either the statement of those 3 passengers or some other passengers should have been recorded at the time of checking or they should have been produced during the inquiry. In this case, it was further observed that even if the cash available with the Conductor had been tallied with the tickets issued and if there had been any difference between two by Rs. 2.40 then some adverse inference could be drawn against the respondent-plaintiff. It was accordingly held to be a case of no evidence. Finding that the present case was also based only on the statement of concerned Inspector and the witnesses were not examined, the judgment of the trial Court was reversed.

(2.) In the Regular Second Appeal, reliance was placed on the case of State of Haryana and Anr. v. Rattan Singh, 1977 AIR(SC) 1512, to submit that in a domestic inquiry strict rules of evidence are not applicable and that there would be no need to examine the passenger as is observed by the Supreme Court in this case. It is also observed that the sufficiency of evidence in proof of findings by the Domestic Tribunal is beyond the scrutiny of the Courts. On the basis of this law as cited, the RSA was admitted but no stay was granted.

(3.) No one has appeared for the respondent. The question now to be seen is whether this issue could lead to substantial question of law, which would require adjudication in this case. The observation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rattan Singh's case (supra) basically was in the background of the instructions, which were issued by the Department to the effect that the statement of passengers should be recorded by the Inspectors. These were termed to be instructions of prudence and not rule that would bind or vitiate the order to be invalid. In this case the Inspector had made an attempt to record the statements but the passengers declined to make any statement. The Supreme Court thus observed as under: