SARUP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the plaintiffs suit.

(2.) THE factual background is that the appellant was working as a Conductor in Punjab Roadways, Batala Depot. On 15th January 1984 he was on duty as Conductor in bus No. 1762 which left Batala for Dera Baba Nanak. When the bus had covered about seven kilometres from Batala, it was checked near Dharamkot. The checking party comprised Inspectors Raj Singh and Banarsi Lal. Out of 60 passengers travelling in the bus 42 had not yet been issued tickets nor they had paid fare to the Conductor. Five persons had paid fare and held valid tickets. The remaining thirteen passengers were such who had paid fare to the Conductor but had not been issued any ticket. There were five persons bound for Dera Baba Nanak who had paid fare at the rate of Rs. 2. 30 per ticket and equal number were going to village Shikar who had paid fare to the conductor at the rate of Rs. 1. 60 P. each. Three other persons were going to village Kotli and had paid fare to the Conductor at the rate of Rs. 1. 20 Paise each. The Conductor was thus alleged to have received Rs. 23. 10 P. from the aforesaid 13 passengers but had issued them no tickets. On a report having been made by the checking staff, the General Manager ordered departmental enquiry on two charges, namely embezzlement of a sum of Rs. 23. 10 P. and intentional failure to issue tickets to 42 passengers. The enquiry was conducted by Mr. R. S. Sharma from the office of the Divisional Manager, Transport Department, Jalandhar. The charges were held established. After show cause notice, the punishing authority i. e. the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Batala, removed the said Conductor from service by order dated March 30, 1985. The appeal filed by the alleged delinquent was dismissed by the Divisional Manager, Transport Department, Jalandhar, on 13th December 1985. After serving notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the delinquent instituted a regular suit challenging the order of removal on a number of grounds.

(3.) THE suit was contested. The learned trial Court framed the following