Pepsu Road Transport Corp. Patiala and Ors v. Makhan Singh

RSA-2521-1996 (O&M)              -1-             2024:PHHC:019890

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 201 RSA-2521-1996 (O&M) Date of Decision :12.02.2024 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and others                          ...Appellants

Versus Makhan Singh                              ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondent. * * * Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

¶1In   the  present   regular  second   appeal,  challenge  is   to  the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court dated 06.05.1996 by which, judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 04.06.1994 was set aside and the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff challenging the impugned order of punishment of removal from service, has been allowed.

¶2It may be noticed that respondent-plaintiff   was working as conductor with the appellant-Corporation and while working on the said post,   punishment   of   removal   from   service   was   imposed   upon   the respondent-plaintiff   vide   order   dated   25.02.1988.   The   said   order   of punishment of removal from service was passed on the basis of the misconduct of the respondent-plaintiff as he had not issued tickets to the 08 passengers and the Chief Inspector, who inspected the bus submitted his report   that   respondent-plaintiff   though   had   charged   money   from   the RSA-2521-1996 (O&M)              -2-             2024:PHHC:019890

passengers but had not issued them tickets.

¶3After conducting departmental enquiry wherein charges alleged against the respondent-plaintiff were proved, the respondent-plaintiff was removed from service vide punishment order dated 25.02.1988, which punishment order was upheld by the appellate authority as well vide order dated 21.09.1989. In the civil suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff, order of punishment dated 25.02.1988 as well as appellate order dated 21.09.1989 was challenged and the trial Court keeping in view the facts and evidence which had come on record dismissed the said suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 04.06.1994.

¶4Feeling aggrieved against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 04.06.1994, respondent-plaintiff   preferred an appeal, which came to be decided by the lower appellate Court vide order dated

06.05.1996 whereby, the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff  was allowed. Said judgment and decree dated 06.05.1996 of the lower Appellate Court is under challenge in the present regular second appeal.

¶5Learned counsel for the appellants argues that lower Appellate Court has only allowed the suit on the ground that during the departmental enquiry,   passengers   who   were   found   to   be   without   tickets   though, respondent-plaintiff charged money from them, have not testified. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the said reason was not valid so as to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 04.06.1994 keeping in view the settled principle of law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.922-1976 titled as State of Haryana and another vs. Rattan Singh decided on 22.03.1977  wherein, it has been held that where the passengers have not been examined in the departmental RSA-2521-1996 (O&M)              -8-             2024:PHHC:019890

entiuir(, the departmental entiuir( !ill not 'e treated as 'ad especiall( !hen the findings recorded '( the 6ntiuir( 7fficer !ere 'ased upon the facts !hich   have   'een   recorded   '(   the   "hief   Inspector   during   inspection. 8elevant paragraphs of the  udgment are as under:*

¶4It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. Ail materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and administrative tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor text books, although we have been taken through case law and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fairplay is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding,even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good. However, the courts below mis-directed themselves, perhaps, in insisting that passengers who had come in and gone out should be chased and brought before the tribunal before a valid finding could be recorded. The RSA-2521-1996 (O&M)              -4-             2024:PHHC:019890

'residuum' rule to which counsel for the respondent referred, based upon certain passengers from American jurisprudence does not go to that extent nor does the passage from Halsbury insist on such rigid requirement. The simple point is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular court proceedings but in a fair common-sense way as men of understanding and wordly wisdom will accept. Viewed in this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in support of a ending is certainty available for the court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record. We find, in this case, that the evidence of Chamanlal, Inspector of the flying squad, is some evidence which has elevance to the charge leveled against the respondent. Therefore, we are unable to hold that the order is invalid on that ground.

¶5Reliance was placed, as earlier stated, on the non-compliance with the departmental instruction that statements of passengers should be recorded by inspectors. These are instructions of prudence, not rules that bind or vitiate in the violation. In this case, the Inspector tried to get the statements but the passengers declined, the psychology of the latter in such circumstances being understandable, although may not be approved. We cannot hold that merely RSA-2521-1996 (O&M)              -5-             2024:PHHC:019890

because statements of passengers were not recorded the order that followed was invalid. Likewise, the reavaluation of the evidence on the strength of co-conductor's testimony is a matter not for the court but for the administrative tribunal in conclusion, we do not think the courts below were right in over-turning the finding of the domestic tribunal."

¶6No one appears on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff  to rebut the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶7Keeping in view the settled principle of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rattan Singh (supra), findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court are perverse and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and are accordingly set aside. Judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 04.06.1994 is restored and the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff  is dismissed.

¶8Civil miscellaneous application pending, if any is also disposed of. February 12,  2024                 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) aarti                         JUDGE