BALIA, J. - (1.) WE heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE respondent was appointed as a Conductor on probation w. e. f. 4. 7. 1977 by the appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ``the Corporation') and was posted at Jodhpur Depot. While, he was discharging his duties as Conductor on Jodhpur-Kota route, by order 1. 12. 1982 he was put under suspension in contemplation of an inquiry. THE memorandum of charges dated 6. 1. 1983 was issued. THE memorandum of charges consisted as many as 9 charges, out of which 7 charges related to making interpolation in tickets issued by him in duplicate and a copy of which was retained for submitting his accounts of collections by converting the name of the terminal Kota to terminal Kekri. On the basis of this conversion, it was alleged that the delinquent officer ought to have deposited with the Corporation full fare chargeable between the two terminals namely from Jodhpur to Kota at Rs. 42/- per ticket but the delinquent officer has deposited only that amount which was chargeable from the commencement of journey to the terminal point of the journey shown in the tickets as altered and, therefore, he has deposited less amount with the Corporation. One of the charges related that he has issued such tickets which were to be issued for journey for which ticket value was more than Rs. 15/- for lesser amount and then by adding sums to add up to 15 rupees, were deposited by him, whereas in respect of such ticket also, the delinquent officer ought to have deposited the full charges of the ticket for the entire route on which he was discharging his duties. Another charge was about depositing less amount because of issuing the child tickets for adults which has resulted in less deposit of amount by Rs. 106/ -. So far as the last charge, referred to above, the delinquent officer had admitted that he has mistakenly issued child tickets and deposited the amount of Rs. 106/- with the Corporation. However, rest of the charges were denied by him. He has specifically stated that he has not made any interpolation and cutting in the tickets issued on route, nor there has been any interpolation in the amount of fair stated in the tickets issued to the respective passengers and the delinquent officer has not deposited amount less than what has been received by him in respect of any of the tickets. There were no interpolation in way bills also. The delinquent officer also took the stand that when he submitted ticket book and accounts, there was no over-writing. The witnesses who have been examined during the course of inquiry have also supported the case of delinquent officer with regard to submission of way bill and ticket took with the Corporation. They also stated that they had not seen any over-writing on the same. However, the Inquiry Officer found in his report that all charges levelled against the delinquent officer stand proved and considering the inquiry report and the representation submitted by the delinquent officer, by order dated 7. 5. 1983, the delinquent officer was removed from the service and his balance remuneration for the suspension period has been forfeited. The appeal against the order passed by the Regional Manager, Jodhpur was rejected by the Appellate Authority by order dated 5. 10. 1983. This led to filing of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2814/1993 which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge by his order dated 13. 5. 1997. The learned Single Judge has found firstly that the conduct of inquiry was not just and fair. The delinquent officer has demanded summoning of defence witness Mohd. Ali the Checking Clerk, but his prayer has been rejected without recording any reason which vitiates the inquiry. The contention of the Corporation that the delinquent officer has not disclosed the relevance of the witness on the issue on which he wants to examine him, therefore, the inquiry officer did not think it proper and had not issued summons to Mohd. Ali would not vitiate the inquiry not will it affect the fairness of the inquiry otherwise, was not sustained.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge has also examined the record and the proceedings and has reached conclusions that there has been no interpolation nor any such deficiency has been noticed in the amount of tickets entered into the ticket sheet and the amount charged from the passengers has been in accordance with the amount chargeable for the destination for which the ticket has been issued. After examining the tickets the learned Single Judge found that in any amount of the incriminating tickets, no over- writing or cutting is visible and in some of the tickets, there appears to be some interpolation about which one can have suspicion but the suspicion cannot take the place for proof of the misconduct of such a grave nature, therefore, the finding reached by the Inquiry Officer and agreed by the Disciplinary Authority without assigning any reason is founded on no legal evidence, and the same cannot be sustained. As a result of the aforesaid conclusion, the impugned order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Appellant Authority was quashed. THE petitioner was directed to be reinstated with consequential benefits of continuity of service but his entitlement to back wages was restricted to 50% as agreed to by the counsel for the petitioner. This has led to filing of this special appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has also made available to us the record of inquiry proceedings which was required to be looked into as both the issues decided by the learned Single Judge largely proceed on the record of inquiry itself. ;