Roop Singh vs Punjab State and another

Mohinder Pal, J.—This is regular second appeal filed by Plaintiff-Appellant Roop Singh against the judgment of Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide which the finding of the trial Court has been reversed.

Roop Singh-plaintiff (Appellant herein) was employed as a Conductor in the Punjab Roadways, Batala. His services were terminated on the ground that he had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 8.20. A departmental inquiry was ordered and Divisional Manager, Punjab Roadways, Jalandhar was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. In the inquiry report, it has been held that Roop Singh-Appellant had collected Rs. 8.20 as fare from six passengers but he did not issue tickets to them. The termination order was challenged by filing a civil suit which was decreed on 4.9.1985 by the trial Court. It was held that the order of termination was illegal and against the principles of natural justice. Ultimately, the Plaintiff was held entitled to all the benefits of service including pay and allowances. However, in appeal the findings of the trial Court has been reversed by taking into account the evidence adduced by the parties and finally the impugned order was held to be valid and legal. Aggrieved from this order, the Plaintiff-Appellant Roop Singh has come up in regular second appeal before this Court.

I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the trial Court record with their assistance.

While arguing in appeal Learned Counsel for the Appellant has raised three-fold arguments. It has been submitted that the cash possessed by the Appellant has not been checked or tallied by the Inspectors. No passenger travelling in the bus has been examined and lastly, the General Manager of Punjab Roadways was present at a distance of 15 meters from the place of occurrence. As he was also the punishing authority, the entire proceedings against the Appellant have been vitiated.

The case against the Appellant is that on 30.5.1983, Som Nath, Inspector, Punjab Roadways along with Kartar Singh Cheema another Inspector checked bus No. 710 on route No. 19 at Wadala Granthian bus stop under the supervision of the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Batala. The inspectors found six passengers travelling without tickets (five from Batala to Qadian and one from Batala to Wadala Granthian). On inquiry, the said passengers told the Inspectors that the Conductor had collected fare of Rs. 8.20 from them, however, he did not issue tickets to them. It was pointed out that the Appellant had committed a fraud of Rs. 8.20. The Inspectors collected the un-punched tickets and on receipt of report, the General Manager passed the orders of suspension of the Appellant. Charge-sheet was issued and after receiving reply the Divisional Manager, Punjab Roadways, Jalandhar was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. The Appellant was allowed assistance of a co-worker and finally he was found guilty of the charges framed against him. On the other hand, it is case of the Appellant that the bus started from Batala at 8.30 p.m. for Qadian. The bus was overloaded and he issued tickets to all the passengers. When the Inspectors checked the bus, five passengers out of them had clearly told the Inspectors that they had purchased the tickets but lost the same due to crowding in the bus. The passenger going to Wadala Granthian told the Inspectors that he and two others were travelling together and were issued three tickets and all the three tickets were collected by one passenger, who got down at previous bus stop and did not hand over the ticket to him (passenger). It is further his defence that the raid was arranged against him as earlier he had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 50,000/- against the department and in order to take revenge he has been implicated.

Coming to the first argument of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that cash available with the Appellant has not been checked by the Inspectors at the time of raid is devoid of any force in view of the own defence of the Appellant that the passengers without tickets were issued the tickets, however, they had lost the same. It is difficult to imagine the circumstance in which the five passengers have lost the tickets and the sixth one explains that the other two co-passengers alighted from the bus at the previous station had taken away his ticket. Further the arguments of Learned Counsel for the Appellant that no other co-passengers has been examined is once again without any merit as the Inspectors who had conducted the raid have been examined and the passengers found without tickets have complained to them that the Appellant had taken the fare but did not issue the tickets. The evidence of the Inspectors cannot be thrown away simply on the ground that they were employees of Punjab Roadways. Ultimately, the Appellant is also an employee of the Punjab Roadways and the Inspectors has no axe to grind against the Appellant. In absence of any enmity between the Appellant and the Inspectors, it cannot be said that the Inspectors were prejudiced against the Appellant. The third arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that General Manager was also present at the time of checking is once again without any basis as the General Manager has neither participated in the inquiry nor has been cited as a witness or appeared against the Appellant. Merely, his presence at the distance of 10-15 meters from the place of occurrence cannot be levelled as the violation of principles of natural justice. The Appellant has examined Harjinder Singh witness in defence who has deposed that on the relevant date he was travelling in the bus and in his presence the tickets were issued to the passengers. In cross-examination, he has admitted that no further complaint to the higher authorities regarding high-handedness of the Inspectors has been pointed out. Otherwise also, this witness has said in so many words that all the passengers were issued the tickets. I am unable to imagine a situation in which an ordinary passenger will know that each and every passenger travelling in the bus has been issued the tickets by the Conductor. This is, particularly, so when the bus is stated to be overcrowded.

Resultantly, the regular second appeal is bound to fail and the same is hereby dismissed. The judgment of the lower appellate Court is upheld. Consequently, the suit of the Plaintiff stands dismissed.