( 1 ) ). This appeal is filed by the Gujarat State Road Transport corporation ("corporation" for short), against a decree passed by the trial court and confirmed by the Appellate Court directing reinstatement of the plaintiff in service with full back wages.

( 2 ) ). To appreciate the controversy in question, few relevant facts may now be stated. The respondent is the original plaintiff and the appellant is the original defendant. The defendant is a statutory Corporation created under the Road Transport Act, 1950, and can be said to be "state" within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India. The plaintiff was serving as a Conductor at Junagadh Depot. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 19/08/1974, inter alia, alleging therein that while he was on duty on 4/07/1974 on Manavadar-Koyiana route, his bus was checked by the checking staff of the Corporation near village Mandodara and certain irregularities were found. It was alleged that 8 passengers travelling from Manavadar to Koylana were found without tickets. Though they had paid the amount of fare, the plaintiff had not issued tickets to them. Similarly, 7 passengers travelling from Manavadar to Mandodara were found without tickets. According to those passengers, they had also paid the fare but the plaintiff did not issue tickets to them. Likewise, two passengers going from Mithadi to Koylana were found without tickets, though they had paid necessary amount to the plaintiff. Finally, two passengers travelling from Mithadi to Mandodara were also not supplied tickets by the plaintiff, though he had recovered amount of fare from them. Thus in all, according to the allegation of the department, the plaintiff did not issue tickets to 19 passengers even after receiving the amount of fare from them. The plaintiff also violated the departmental instructions by making road-booking even though it was not permitted. The plaintiff thereby violated arts. 7 (a) and 12 (b) of Schedule a of the Discipline and Appeal Procedure of the Corporation. In view of those allegations, the plaintiff was asked to show cause as to why appropriate action should not be taken against him. The plaintiff filed his reply on 12/09/1974 controverting the allegations levelled against him. He did not specifically deny the allegation of roadbooking but he rather tried to justify the said action explaining that in doing so, there was no mala fide intention or oblique motive on his part but as the bus was late, with a view to avoid any hardship to the passengers, instead of adhering to the letter of law, he adopted practical way so that inconvenience to the passengers could be avoided. He repudiated the allegation of misappropriation and asserted that he had not indulged in any activity which was prejudicial to or against the interest of the Corporation. He therefore, prayed for revocation of the charge-sheet issued against him.

( 3 ) ). Since the department was not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the plaintiff, a regular departmental enquiry was instituted against him. It may be mentioned that when the bus was checked and certain passengers were found without tickets, statements of some of them were recorded by the reporters in presence of the plaintiff and all of them without exception, categorically stated that they had paid the amount of fare to the plaintiff but tickets were not issued to them. Those statements were signed by the passengers and countersigned by the plaintiff. When the departmental enquiry was held against the plaintiff, the reporters, namely, Mr. Rajyaguru and Mr. Saivaiya were examined by the department and they supported the case of the department. They stated that they had recorded the statements of the passengers in presence of the plaintiff. Those passengers had stated that even though the amount of fare was collected by the plaintiff, he did not issue tickets to them. The reporters were also cross-examined by the next friend of the plaintiff. In a reply