The main legal point established is that recovery of unused ticket value should not be automatic and should be based on diligent conduct and the circumstances of the loss, as indicated by the relevant proceedings and settlement clauses.

The State owned Transport Corporation is the appellant. The challenge is to the order of the learned single Judge dated 30.11.2001 passed in W.A. No.12709 of 1994. The respondent preferred the above writ petition challenging the order of the appellant dated 26. 1994, in and by which the appellant ordered for recovery of a sum of Rs.13,400/-in forty-eight installments from the salary payable to the respondent from the month of July 1991. The said sum of Rs.13,400/-was arrived at towards the value of the unused ticket contained in two ticket books issued to the respondent, while he was assigned the duty of Conductor in the appellant Corporation vehicle plying between Madurai and Coimbatore. The brief facts which resulted in the issuance of the above order of punishment dated 26. 1994 was that the respondent was assigned the duty of Conductor on 24. 1992 in the bus running between Madurai and Coimbatore. On that day, when the bus left Palani at 4.30 a.m., he was entrusted with three ticked books. It is stated that while he was in the process of issuing tickets on 24. 1992 in the first trip between Palani and Madurai, he noticed that two unused ticket books kept in his personal bag along with his other wearing apparels and money purse with cash of Rs.120/- were stolen. According to the respondent, he informed the same to Palani Depot through wireless message and that on 24. 1992, he lodged a complaint with Palani Police Station for the above loss of ticket books. The respondent was issued with a charge sheet dated 29. 1992 alleging negligence in performance of his duty. The respondent submitted his explanation. Not satisfied with the explanation, an enquiry was also held. The enquiry officer submitted his report finding the respondent guilty of the charges. Based on the finding of the enquiry officer, the impugned order dated 26. 1994 came to be passed directing recovery of a sum of Rs.13,400/-. Challenging the same, the respondent preferred the above writ petition, which came to be allowed by the learned single Judge.

2. Assailing the order of the learned single Judge Mr. S. Jayaraman, learned counsel for the appellant in his submissions contended that for the loss of unused tickets, a procedure for recovery is prescribed in the proceedings dated 6. 1986, which was subsequently in consultation with the employees union revised by proceedings dated 26. 1991 and 8. 1991 and that the impugned order dated 26. 1994 was issued to the respondent strictly applying the above referred to proceedings and therefore no interference was called for to the impugned order dated 26. 1994. According to the counsel, the subsequent understanding reached with the union in the year 1995 was not applicable to the case on hand as the loss of ticket books was in the year 1992. Learned counsel also contended that the unused ticket books are valuable to the appellant Corporation, since there would be every scope for abusing those ticket books for persons to undertake travel, without paying the necessary value of the tickets. Learned counsel also con-tended that when the ticket books are issued to the Conductors it is as good as such, conductors being entrusted with the cash value of such ticket books and therefore unless a strict vigil and care is taken in the retention of the ticket books by the conductors, the corporation would be put to serious prejudice and monetary loss. According to the learned counsel, in the above said background, the impugned order of punishment dated 26. 1994 is analyzed then no fault can be found with the appellant Corporation.

3. We also heard Mr. D. Hariparanthaman learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel contended that there was no lack of bona fide on the part of the respondent when he lost the ticket books and therefore the order of punishment seeking to recover a sum of Rs.13,400/- from the respondent while put in unblemished record of fourteen years service, caused prejudice to the respondent. Accordi