(Justice R. B. Mtsra, J.) - The present writ petition has been filed with prayer to quash the dismissal order dated 27.7.1992 of writ petitioner from service, order dated 4.11.1992 (Annexure P-7) rejecting his appeal and order dated 24.6.1997 dismissing the OA No. 1484/1992 of writ petitioner by the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal.

The original writ petitioner' namely late Shri Som Nath has preferred O.A. No. 1484/92 before erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal challenging the following orders :

(i) Memorandum dated 27.3.1990.

(ii) Enquiry Report dated 19.6.1992;

(iii) Order dated 20.6.1992 passed by respondent No.2.

(iv) Order dated 4.11.1992 reported to have been passed by Managing Director of respondent Corporation.

2. The petition was adjudicated and Original Application No. 1484 of 1992 was dismissed by Learned Tribunal vide impugned order dated 24.6.1997.

3. In order to adjudicate the present writ petition it is necessary to give the factual background of the case. The writ petitioner was employed as Conductor in Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (in short HPRTC), Pathankot on 17.6.1982, thereafter he was transferred to HPRTC, Hamirpur, where he joined on 4.9.1986. On 12.1.1990, when he was coming with HRTC Bus No. HP-22-0541 from Haridwar to Hamirpur, the bus was checked by the Flying Squad of HPRTC at a place known as Bhota, when out of 15 passengers travelling therein, the said bus, 4 passengers were found without tickets from Una to Hamirpur. Enquiries revealed that the writ petitioner had charged bus fare amounting Rs. 68/-, from them but for that he did not issue tickets, as such, had allegedly misappropriated the revenue. The writ petitioner was dealt with departmentally and was held guilty of the charges. A copy of the enquiry report supplied to him by registered communication No. HRTC-HMR-Estt/Vig.92-2818 dated 20.06.1992 (Annexure-P/3 to the writ petition), which was duly served to him vide acknowledgement (Annexure-R/1). The reply to the said show cause notice was also submitted by him vide Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition stating that the enquiry report was defective. The enquiry report sent to the writ petitioner vide Annexure P/3 had also been shown as Annexure P/2 to the writ petition.

4. As has been observed the Learned Tribunal that the enquiry report was submitted after observing the relevant provisions governing the departmental enquiry. Learned Tribunal has derived correct impression on the basis of evidence on record that the writ petitioner was guilty of mis-appropriation of Corporation revenue and in a fraudulent manner has collected the bus fare from the passengers without issuing tickets to them.

5. According to Learned Tribunal, the departmental enquiry in question is an enquiry which cannot be said to be based on no evidence. The writ petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 27.3.1990 and after full fledged enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 19.6.1992 by proposing a penalty of dismissal on 20.6.1992. The writ petitioner was also afforded opportunity to submit his reply to the proposed penalty of dismissal on 7.7.1992 and ultimately the dismissal order dated 27.7.1992 was passed by Divisional Manager HPRTC.

6. Following submissions have mainly been advanced on behalf of the petitioner :-

(i) The two Inspectors accompanying R.K. Sharma, Flying Squad Inspector were not examined as such the mandatory provision of departmentally enquiry were not observed.

(ii) The enquiry was in derogation to the principle of natural justice.

(iii) Dismissal order is based on no evidence.

(iv) There is violation of mandatory provision of sub Rules 16 and 17 of Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 as much as the delinquent official should have been asked to produce his witnesses only after he was given an opportunity to state his defence either orally or in writing. Since the delinquent official/writ petitioner was asked to lead h