J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS is Defendant's second appeal against whom the suit for declaration was dismissed by the trial Court, but decreed in appeal.
(2.) THE Plaintiff -Respondent was serving as a conductor in the Punjab Roadways, Amritsar. On February 23, 1972, he was found in possession of the cash in excess of Rs. 14.80. On October 3, 197 -2, the cash in his possession was checked and found to be short by Rs. 29.16. On September 22, 1972, nine passengers were found travelling without tickets in the bus and, therefore, he was alleged to have misappropriated Us. 2.25. On April 24, 1972, three passengers were found to be travelling without tickets and he was alleged to have caused a loss of Rs. 2.25 to the State. On April 12, 1972, three passengers were found to be travelling without tickets in the bus and it was alleged that he intended to embezzle the amount thereto. On these allegations, he was placed under suspension on May 6, 1972. He was charge -sheeted and an enquiry was held against him by Shri B. S. Sodhi, Enquiry Officer. Shri Sharan Singh, the then General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Amritsar, was of the view that on the basis of the enquiry report, the Plaintiff was liable to be removed from service. He, therefore, called upon him to show cause against the proposed punishment. The Plaintiff filed his reply to the show cause notice dated November 10, 1972. After considering his reply and giving him a personal hearing, the then General Manager passed the impugned order, Exhibit D. 2 whereby he was removed from service. The Plaintiff filed an appeal before the Director, State Transport, Punjab, which was dismissed: He filed the present suit for the grant of a declaration to the effect that the order of his removal from service dated November 23, 1972, was illegal, void, arbitrary and that he continued to be in service as a conductor. He was entitled to the pay and privileges of his position and the other consequential benefits. The suit was contested on behalf of the Defendant inter alia on the ground that the impugned order was in accordance with law and the suit as such was not maintainable. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff had failed to prove that, the impugned order, Exhibit D. 2, was illegal, invalid, void or arbitrary, as alleged. As a result, his suit was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, reversed the said finding of the trial Court and held that the order dated November 23, 1972, Exhibit D. 2, passed by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Amritsar, was illegal and void. Consequently, the Plaintiff's suit was decreed. Dissatisfied with the same, the Defendant has come up in second appeal to this Court. The learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the learned Additional District Judge found the order of removal, Exhibit D. 2, to be illegal and void on two grounds, namely, (i) that the passengers travelling in the bus were not produced before the Enquiry Officer in support of the allegations levelled against the Plaintiff and, thus, there was no legal evidence to the effect that the Plaintiff had misappropriated any money. The learned lower appellate Court in this behalf placed reliance on Tarlochan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1975 CLJ and (ii) that the Enquiry Officer cross -examined the Plaintiff after each of the witnesses was examined during the enquiry and, thus, the enquiry was vitiated. In this behalf, the learned lower appellate Court relied upon S. Krishnan Nair v. The Divisional. Superintendent (P.B.), Southern Railway, 1973 (2) S.L.R. 353. The learned Counsel submitted that so far as the first ground was concerned, the decision relied upon by the lower appellate Court was over ruled in letters patent appeal by the Full Bench of this Court' in State of Haryana v. Ram Chander : AIR 1976 P&H 381 and, therefore, the said ground was no more available to the Plaintiff. As far as the second ground was concerned, argued the counsel, the strict rules of evidence did not apply to the domestic enquiries and that the Plaintiff had nowhere alleged any prejudice caused to him on account of his being cross -examined by the Enquiry Officer, as alleged, and therefore. the decision in S. Krishna Nair's case (supra), relied upon by the lower appellate Court was not at all applicable to the facts of the present case.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel I am of the considered opinion that the findings arrived at by the lower appellate Court to the effect that the enquiry was not fair, are liable to be set aside.;