SURJIT SINGH Vs. THE PUNJAB STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. No. 5218 C of 2014.

(2.) PRAYER in this application is for condoning the delay of 150 days in refilling the appeal. Reason assigned for delay in refilling the appeal is that the file was misplaced in the office of the Advocate at the time of renovation work. However, when the applicant -appellant enquired about the fate of his case, then the counsel, with the help of his Clerk, traced out the file, which resulted in delay of 150 days in refilling the appeal. The application is supported by an affidavit of the Clerk of the counsel.

(3.) THE contention as raised by counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as State of Haryana and another v. Rattan Singh, : (1977) 79 PLR 492 (S.C.), where it has been held that in a domestic enquiry, where a Bus Conductor of the State Transport Undertaking had not issued the tickets but collected the fare from certain passengers and their statements being not recorded, would not vitiate the domestic enquiry as the strict rules of evidence are not applicable. If logically probative material indicates sufficient evidence to prove that fares were collected but the tickets were not issued, the same would be sufficient for returning a finding of guilt against the delinquent employee. Even hear -say credible evidence is permissible and can be relied upon. Thus, the assertion of counsel for the appellant that the enquiry proceedings stand vitiated because of non -examining of the passengers deserves to be rejected.