A.N.DIVECHA - (1.) The Original Plaintiff of Regular Civil Suit No. 705 of 1977 decided by the learned Joint Civil Judge (J. D.) at Junagadh on 1/05/1978 has preferred this Second Appeal against the judgment and the decree passed by the learned District Judge of Junagadh on 31/03/1979 in Civil Regular Appeal No. 57 of 1978 and allied appeals. Thereby the lower Appellate Court was pleased to dismissed the appeal and to affirm the judgment and the decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the present Appellant's suit.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this Appeal may be summarised thus : The respondent herein is a statutory Corporation established under the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 (the 'Act' for brief), I shall refer to respondent No. 1 as the Corporation for the sake of convenience. The appellant was at the relevant time serving as a Conductor in the Corporation. For the sake of convenience I shall refer to him as the 'delinquent'. He was in charge of one bus bearing No. 8239 going from Junagadh to Jamjodhpur on 19/03/1977. That bus was checked by the checking party on that day. It was found that no tickets were issued to some 13 passengers going from Makhiyalla to Sharhad-patia though he collected the fare from them. Thereupon one charge-sheet bearing No. 107 of 23/03/1977 was issued to him calling upon him to explain why. he should not be held guilty of the charge levelled against him. A copy of the charge-sheet is at Exh. 17 on the record of the trial Court. He appears to have submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 2 3/04/1977 and denied the charges levelled against him. A copy of his reply to the charge-sheet is at Exh. 21 on the record of the trial Court. It appears that thereupon the disciplinary authority himself conducted the enquiry proceedings against the delinquent. The evidence was recorded therein. A copy of the deposition of the Reporter examined on behalf of the department is at Exh. 22 on the record of the trial Court. No witness appears to have been examined by or on behalf of the delinquent in the enquiry proceedings. It however appears that the disciplinary authority as the Enquiry Officer recorded some statement of the delinquent. Its copy is part of the copy of the deposition of the Reporter at Exh. 22. It appears that thereafter the enquiry report was prepared holding the delinquent guilty of the charge levelled against him. He was thereupon served with what is popularly known as the second show-cause notice on 6/10/1977 accompanied by a copy of the enquiry report. The second show-cause notice together with its accompaniment is at Exh. 18 on the record of the trial Court. He appears to have submitted his reply to the second show-cause notice on 10th October, 1977. A copy opy of his reply is at Exh. 23 on the record of the trial Court. It appears that his reply at Exh. 24 was not found acceptable by the disciplinary authority. By the order passed on 1 5/11/1977 by the disciplinary authority, the appellant came to be dismissed from service. The appellant thereupon filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (J.D.) at Junagadh challenging the legality and validity of the order passed by the disciplinary authority of the Corporation dismissing him from service. It was registered as Regular Civil Suit No. 705 of 1977. It appears to have been assigned to the Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) at Junagadh. The Corporation and the disciplinary authority were impleaded as defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the Conciliation Officer of Government of Gujarat at Rajkot was impleded as defendants No. 4. The Corporation and its officers filed their written statements at Exh. 13 on the record of the trial Court and resisted the suit on various grounds. It appears that no written statement was filed by original defendant No. 4 in the suit. The learned trial Judge framed the necessary issues on the pleadings of the parties. By his judgment and decree passed on 1/05/1978 in Regular Civil Suit No. 705 of 1977, the Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) at Junagadh was pleased to dismiss the suit. That aggrieved the present appellant. He, therefore, carried the matter in appeal before the District Judge of Junagadh. His appeal came to be registered as Civil Regular Appeal No. 57 of 1978. It was heard along with other allied appeals. The learned District Judge, by his judgment and order passed on 31/03/1979 in Civil Regular Appeal No. 57 of 1978 and allied appeals, was pleased to dismiss the appeal and to affirm the judgment and the decree passed by the lower Court. The aggrieved appellant has thereupon preferred this Second Appeal before this Court questioning the correctness of the judgment and the decree passed by the lower Appellate Court.
(3.) Shri Mehta for the appellant has submitted that the Corporation did not examine, in the enquiry proceedings, the passengers who were found to be without tickets after payment of the fare to the delinquent in the bus in question, and as such the conclusion reached by the Enquiry Officer holding the delinquent guilty of the charge levelled against him can be said to have been based on no evidence. In support of his submission, Shri Mehta for the appellant has relied on the unreported ruling of this Court in Second Appeal No. 223 of 1977 decided on 26/06/1991. As against this, Shri Desai for the respondents has submitted that, in view of the binding ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ann. v. Rattan Singh, reported in AIR 1977 SC 1512, it was not necessary for the Corporation to have examined the passengers or any of them found to be without tickets though having paid fare to the delinquent at the relevant time. According to Shri Desai for the respondents, the aforesaid unreported ruling of this High Court in Second Appeal No. 223 of 1977 decided on 26/06/1991 is given in ignorance of the aforesaid ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Rattan Singh (supra) and as such it will have no binding value to this Court. Even otherwise, runs the submission of Shri Desai for the respondent, the aforesaid unreported ruling of this Court in Second Appeal No. 223 of 1977 decided on 2 6/06/1991 is distinguishable on its own facts.;