H. L. Gokhale, C.J. - (1.) HEARD, Mr. B. N. Tiwari in support of this special appeal.
(2.) THE appeal seeks to challenge the order dated 30.4.2004 passed by a learned Judge of this Court, dismissing the writ filed by the appellant herein. The short facts giving rise to this appeal are this wise. The appellant was working as a Bus Conductor in the first respondent-U. P. State Road Transport Corporation in district Ballia. On a surprise checking on 25th August, 1988 when his bus reached the Bus Station at village Jamuan, it was found that there were 39 passengers who were without ticket. The Inspector asked for the way bill, which the appellant resisted. The appellant even abused the Assistant Regional Manager and the checking staff at that time. This incident led to a charge-sheet on 21st October, 1992 and a departmental enquiry. The enquiry led to an order of dismissal. Internal remedies were also resorted to but they resulted into failure and hence the writ petition was filed. Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the passenger Shaifullah whose statement was recorded at the time of checking was not examined in the enquiry. It is, however, to be noted that the statement of the Assistant Regional Manager, who was in the checking squad, was recorded before the Inquiry Officer and he has proved the incident.
(3.) AS far as the domestic enquiries concerning industrial employees are concerned, it has been laid down way back in State of Haryana and another v. Rattan Singh, AIR 1977 SC 1512, that in a domestic enquiry, the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. In the instant case, the evidence of the ASsistant Regional Manager cannot be said to be hearsay evidence for the reason that he himself was present at the time of checking and it is his report that 39 passengers were found without ticket and that the appellant refused to give way bill and, in fact, used bad language. In the case before the Supreme Court cited above also, the Bus Conductor was charged for not collecting fares from some 44 passengers. There also, the statement of the officers were relied upon and the Supreme Court held that the procedure followed was valid and permissible procedure even if the statement of the passengers was not recorded.;