S.N.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) THE special appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 1.8.03. THE appellant has moved the application for restoration of the appeal. THE grounds shown in the affidavit accompanying the application are sufficient. THE application is, therefore, allowed. We, therefore, recall the order dated 1.8.03 and restore the special appeal to its original number. This special appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 16.3.93, by means of which the order of removal from service dated 15.6.81 and the order passed in appeal dated 15.6.81 have been quashed. Assailing the aforesaid order, it has been said that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge regarding there being no evidence to prove the guilt of the respondent is not correct and that it was not necessary to examine the passengers to prove the guilt as in the absence of the examination of the passengers, the charge levelled could have been proved, even otherwise. Submission is that mere non-examination of the passengers as witnesses would not vitiate the enquiry. It may be taken note of, that the writ petition was filed in the year 1982 and it was decided on 16.3.93 and during all this period of pendency of the writ petition, no counter affidavit was filed by the appellants, who were respondents in the writ petition. THE writ petition, therefore, was decided on the strength of the affidavits/material before the learned Single Judge. In the special appeal also, there is no interim order and as a matter of fact, right from the day one, the same appears to have been kept pending and not argued by the appellants and it has come up for hearing today after 16 years of the passing of the order and filing of the appeal. It is also relevant to mention that during this interregnum period, the special appeal was dismissed in default for which restoration application has been moved, which we have allowed today. THE manner in which the appellants have been contesting the matter may not be a relevant factor for deciding the appeal but it certainly shows that the department was not seriously interested in getting the matter decided from the very beginning. We have perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge and we find that he has given cogent reasons for quashing the order of removal and has not based his findings merely on the fact that the passengers were not examined. We need not repeat the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge but we would like to observe that apart from giving reasons for quashing the orders, he has also taken into account that in spite of the statement of one of the checking staff, R.S. Upadhyaya, that the driver Bhagwati Prasad was sitting on the roof of the bus at the time of inspection and that he had realised money from some of the passengers, the punishing authority gave a clean chit to the driver. THE learned Single Judge further observed that the submissions made and the explanation given by the petitioner (the present respondent) will thus, appear to have strong roots in the admitted facts and the punishing authority was not right in ignoring this explanation and that the record does not indicate existence of any other evidence which could reasonably lead to the conclusion of guilt of the respondent. THE statements of the passengers who allegedly paid fare without obtaining tickets were not recorded nor any explanation has been given for failure to do so. Further, the learned Single Judge, after citing various case laws in his judgement and order, has observed that no effort was made to tally the cash in the hands of the Conductor with the tickets issued and if this had been done and some difference was found, adverse inference could have been drawn and that in the circumstances, failure to record the statements of the passengers or examine them during enquiry will be an added ground against the finding of guilt recorded by the appointing authority. That being so, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that order passed by the learned Single Judge has been complied with and the respondent has been given all the benefits. That being so, and also for the reasons given hereinabove, we dismiss the special appeal.;