Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dt. 18.06.2015 whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant -Corporation was dismissed and the order of the Industrial Tribunal dt. 30.11.2010 declining approval to the order of removal of the respondent was upheld. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
(2.) The respondent, while working as Conductor with the appellant -Corporation, had been issued two chargesheets dt. 01.10.1990 & 31.05.1991. After regular enquiry, he was ordered to be dismissed from service. Application under Sec. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was preferred by the appellant seeking approval of the order of dismissal.
(3.) It is apparent that in the chargesheet dt. 01.10.1990 the allegations pertained to over -writing in place of destination from Ahmedabad to Abu Road and overwriting/cutting/interpolation in number of passengers instead of 11 to 1. It was held by the tribunal that in the way -bill only one ticket No. 906 was indicated and 917 which would be the number in addition of 11 passengers had not been indicated and hence, it is evident that the error was on account of slip of pen, which fact had already been admitted by the complainant in the course of enquiry. The complainant had also admitted in cross -examination that he could make a statement as to the place of destination only after perusal of the ticket which had not been produced before the tribunal to enable it to ascertain the mentioned place of destination. The complainant had also made a categorical statement that during the course of enquiry it was not possible for any passenger to have travelled without ticket at the Palanpur Check Post. The bus had been inspected at this Check Post by Shri Vidhyanand, who also did not find any passenger without ticket. The enquiry officer had only found the charge as partly proved while he had also concluded that mentioning 11 instead of 1 was on account of slip of pen which could not be proved. No documentary or independent evidence has been produced on behalf of the appellant -Corporation during the course of the enquiry to sustain the charge.;