The court emphasized that it does not sit as an Appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence, but would only interfere if the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on no evidence or if there are violations of natural justice or disproportionate punishment.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, after calling for the records pertaining to the orders dated 18.09.2009 passed by the second respondent, Ka.Ku.No.113/1504/T2/Tha.Aa.Poo.Ka(V) Thi.Ma/2008 and modified by the first respondent in his order dated 23.06.2010 in Ka.Ku.No.113/1504/T2/Tha/Aa.Poo.Ka(V)Thi.Ma/2008, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant the petitioner annual increments and third review, with arrears and all other consequential benefits together with interest, award costs.)

1. The petitioner, who was working as a Bus Conductor in the respondent Transport Corporation has filed this Writ Petition, challenging the order dated 18.09.2009, thereby imposing a punishment of demotion from Selection Grade Conductor to Senior Grade Conductor for a period of five years and the order dated 23.06.2010 in the appeal, confirming the findings and reducing the punishment of demotion of five years to three years.

2. The petitioner was issued with a charge memorandum containing the charges that during the period from 03.10.2007 to 25.10.2007 when he was on duty in Route No.122/E/H, he had collected the tickets issued to the passengers back from them and again re-issued them to the passengers, during the other trips and have unlawfully enriched himself to the tune of Rs.6,590/- and to hide the same, he has repeatedly made the corrections in the trip sheets about the serial numbers of those tickets. The petitioner, namely, Gandhi, denied the charge and submitted his explanation dated 08.05.2008. However, his explanation was not accepted and an Enquiry Officer was appointed.

3. In the course of the enquiry the management examined G.Sivaprakasam and K.Devakumar, Senior Superintendents and marked 25 documents. The delinquent examined himself as a witness. After considering the evidence on record the Enquiry Officer by his report found that the charges have been proved. Thereafter, a second show-cause notice dated 04.09.2008, was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his further explanation on 23.09.2008. After considering the further explanation on 18.09.2009, the second respondent passed the impugned order agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and imposing the punishment of demotion from the Selection Grade Conductor to Senior Grade Conductor for a period of five years.

4. The petitioner submitted an appeal dated 20.10.2009 to the first respondent and by an order dated 23.06.2010, the said appeal was disposed of by reducing the period of demotion from five years to three years. Aggrieved by the Original and Appellate orders, the present writ petition is filed.

5. Heard Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.G.Saravana Kumar, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. The Learned Senior Counsel, pointing out to the charge memo, would submit that in a case of re-issue of tickets, without any checking/inspection of the Bus or without getting any positive information from the passengers that the petitioner had re-issued the tickets and seizing those tickets, which is issued for the second time to the passengers, only on an audit objection, on mere presumption and surmise, the charge has been framed only because of the trip sheets had over-writing. The Management did not prove even those over-writings in the trip sheets were by the petitioner. Therefore, the charge itself is not based on any concrete facts, but on presumption.

6. He would further take this Court through the evidence of the management witnesses and submits that the Management witnesses had evaded each and every question put to them so as to elicit as to whether or not any concrete evidence is with them. On perusal of the evidence of M.W.1 and M.W.2 examined by the Management, it is crystal clear that this is the case of no evidence. More so, because neither any tickets which were re-i