Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as a Conductor in the Haryana Roadways, Rohtak. He was conducting bus No. H.R.R. 406, which was going from Delhi to Bahu Jholari on Feb. 11, 1973. His bus was checked by the Inspecting Staff in the way and it was found that he bad received fare amounting to Rs. 4 from eight passengers @ 0-50p. each, did not issue to them tickets and misappropriated the amount. Consequently, he was charge sheeted. Later, an enquiry was held against him and he was found guilty of misappropriation by the Enquiry Officer. The General Manager, respondent No. 1, after giving him show-cause notice terminated his services vide order dated July 3, 1974 (Annexure P-4l. The petitioner went up in appeal before the State Transport Controller Haryana who vide his order dated Oct. 31, 1975 (Annexure R-3) affirmed the order dated July 3, 1974, of the General Manager. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders through the writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that he was not given an adequate opportunity to defend himself The writ petition has been contested by the respondents who have denied the allegation of the petitioner.
(2.) It is contended by Mr. Sahni, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the statements of eight witnesses from whom the petitioner was alleged to have taken the fare @ 0-50p. each, were recorded by the Inspector and the same were produced before the Enquiry Officer He further contends that the Enquiry Officer took the statements into consideration while holding him guilty of the charges. He further submits that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine those witnesses. According to the learned counsel, thus the Enquiry Officer violated the principles of natural justice
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and find force in the contention of Mr. Sahni. It is clear from the order of the Enquiry Officer that he took into consideration the statements of the witnesses. These witnesses were not examined by him, nor any opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine those witnesses. The State Transport Controller in his order dated Oct. 31, 1975, also too k into consideration the statements of the aforesaid witnesses. That could not be done by the said authorities unless an opportunity had been given to the petitioner to cross-examine those witnesses. In the aforesaid view I get support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. T. P. Varma, A.I.R. 1957 S. C. 882. It was observed by their Lordships that rules of natural justice require that a party should have the opportunity of adducing all relevant evidence on which he relies, that the evidence of the opponent should be taken in his presence, that he should be given the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined by that party, and that no materials should be relied on against him without his being given an opportunity of explaining them.;