IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH.

R.S.A. No. 1117 of 1987

Date of Decision: November 27, 2009

State of Punjab

…Appellant

Versus

Manjit Singh

…Respondent

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR

Present:

Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl. AG, Punjab,

for the appellant.

None for the respondent.

1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in

the Digest?

M.M. KUMAR, J.

The defendant State of Punjab has filed the instant appeal

under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging

the judgment of reversal passed by the learned lower Appellate Court,

dated 22.11.1986. Learned lower Appellate Court has recorded

categorical finding that according to the departmental instructions

dated 7.2.1977 (Ex. P-2) the principles of natural justice were

required to be followed. It has further been held that the departmental

instructions are supplementary to the statutory rules which require

compliance with the principles of audi alteram partem. The learned

lower Appellate Court has further held that the statement of bus

passengers regarding payment of bus fare to the conductor was not

recorded which is primary evidence to prove the charge of

R.S.A. No. 1117 of 1987

misappropriation nor the cash in hand with the conductor proving that

the amount collected by him by issuing tickets, exceeded the amount

of tickets actually issued. On the basis of aforesaid lacuna in the

evidence of the department, the learned Lower Appellate Court came

to the conclusion that there was, in fact, no evidence to sustain the

findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The view of the learned

lower Appellate Court is discernible from the following para of the

judgment:-

“11.

……However, these instructions cannot be

allowed to be flouted by the checking staff, more

particularly when some action against the plaintiff

conductor of the Bus is contemplated. These instructions

are based on the principle of Natural Justice. The

statement of the bus passengers regarding the payment of

the bus fare to the conductor, is a primary evidence to

prove the charge of misappropriation of Government

amount. The checking of the cash in hand with the

conductor, may also go a long way to show as to how

much amount, over and above the amount of tickets,

issued by him, is being held by him in excess. When

neither the statement of the passengers in question are

recorded in black and white nor the cash in hand with the

conductor is checked, then it is very difficult to hold that

the passengers in question have actually paid the fare for

their journey, without getting any ticket from the

conductor. In any case if the statement of the passengers

in question were not recorded by the checking staff at the

2

R.S.A. No. 1117 of 1987

time of checking, then their statement should have been

recorded, at least, at the stage of enquiry. However, in

the instant case, the said passengers have not been

examined. Probably, the checking staff is not even aware

about the names and addresses of the said passengers.

This inference can be drawn from the fact that at no stage

in the enquiry or even in the charge sheet, the names of

such passengers have been mentioned. No explanation

could be given by Sarvshri Jagir Singh UTI, Amrik

Singh, Bakhshish Singh and Prem Sagar Inspectors, who

constituted a checking staff and who appeared as

witnesses for the department at the stage of enquiry, as to

why the statement of the witnesses were not recorded at

any stage. The Enquiry Officer has also not given any

reasoning as to why the examination of the passengers, in

question, was not necessary.”

When the appeal came up for admission on 21.4.1987, no

question of law was framed nor any such question has been claimed

in the grounds of appeal. It appears to me that no question of law

much less a substantive question of law would arise for determination

in this ap