Relentless as he was, he carried the matter to the High Court by way of second appeal and his plea was accepted by the High Court and the second appeal was al lowed.
One of the main issues framed before the trial companyrt was whether all the way bills, carbon companyies of the tickets issued on the said dates and carbon companyy of checking report were number shown to the delinquent employee by the investigat ing officer and if so what would be its effect?
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.5.1981 of the Alla habad High Court in Second Appeal No.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Corporation has approached this Court.
3 169 of 1981.
However, the carbon companyies of the way bills dated 7th, 8th and 10th January, 1963 which are the relevant dates and carbon companyies of the checking report were number shown to him.
The charge against the respondent was that he erased the waybills and resold some already sold tickets.
Jagan Mohan Rao and R. Ramachandran N.P. for the Appellant.
As already mentioned, the trial companyrt as well as the first appellate companyrt did number accept this plea and held that numberprejudice was caused inasmuch as he was shown the origi nals and also on the ground that he did number later insisted on those carbon companyies being shown to him.
The re spondent was a bus conductor in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Corporation for short .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The trial companyrt dismissed the suit and an appeal preferred by him was also dismissed by the appellate companyrt.
During the enquiry the delinquent employee was permitted to inspect the documents but he intended to inspect the carbon companyies and made a request by way of a letter.
A trap was laid against him and a disciplinary enquiry was initiated and dismissal order was passed on 23rd March, 1965.
1018 of 1974.
Subodh Markandeya, Mrs. Chitra Markandeya, W.A. Nomani and G.S. Giri for the Respondent.
He filed a civil suit questioning the same.
On behalf of the Corporation it is companytended that the High Court has grossly erred in interfering in a second appeal with the companycurrent findings and that the plea of the respondent that relevant documents were number supplied to him during the enquiry has numbersubstance.
One of the main plea taken by the respondent was that certain important documents were number made available to him during the enquiry and this caused serious prejudice to him.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J. This is a case where an order of dismissal passed in a departmental enquiry was challenged in civil companyrt and ultimately has found its way to this Court after a long litigation for over 16 years.
