JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against an order of removal from service of the petitioner, Khem Chand, by the Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport, Corporation (hereinafter mentioned as "RSRTC5"), dated December 3, 1974. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner was a conductor in the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation in the month of June, 1974, and was working at Banner. On August 31, 1974 the petitioner was deployed in bus No. 1969 and his duty was to issue tickets to the passengers travelling in the bus. This bus was checked at Numbasar by Assistant Transport inspector, Shri Jorawar Singh, who was accompanied with Traffic Inspector, Mool Singh Deval, and they found that there were 13 passengers who we re travelling without tickets and 180 kg. of luggage was also found for which no charges were collected from the concerned passenger, it is alleged that Jorawar Singh and Mool Singh prepared a memo and thereafter they reported the matter to the higher authorities as a consequence of which the Regional Manager issued a charge-sheet Ex.P.l to the petitioner on September 6, 1974. In this charge-sheet it had been mentioned that 13 passengers at the time of inspection were found travelling without tickets and so also 180 kg. of luggage was also found in the bus without realising charges The break-up of the passengers was given in this charge-sheet as to from which point to which point passengers were travelling, it was further mentioned that out of those 13 passengers the petitioner had not at all charged the fare while from the 7 and also for the luggage. Regarding other six they had been charged but he did not issue the tickets to them. According to the charge-sheet the RSRTC had been put to a pecuniary loss of rupees 42.95P. A detailed reply was tiled to the charge-sheet by the petitioner on September 16, 1974 where he contested the charges and gave his explanation. Regarding other six they had been charged but he did not issue the tickets to them. According to the charge-sheet the RSRTC had been put to a pecuniary loss of rupees 42.95P. A detailed reply was tiled to the charge-sheet by the petitioner on September 16, 1974 where he contested the charges and gave his explanation. His case was that he could not issue the tickets to some of the passengers because there were four constables with a couple of children who were not prepared to purchase the tickets and there were alterations and most of the time consumed in it, as a result of which he could not issue the tickets, He raised some more pleas in his reply but they are not relevant, for the disposal of this writ petition. During the course of enquiry Jorwar Singh was examined and way-bill and has checking report were placed on record. The petitioner cross examined Jorwar Singh and also examined himself in his defence. The enquiry officer submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct under Standing Order No. 341 of RSRTC Employees and Workshop Employees Standing Order On the basis of this the removal order of the petitioner from the service was issued on February 27, 1980 presumably under some agreement entered into between the Employees Labour Union and the Management. Aggrieved by it this writ petition has been preferred. 3. This writ petition came up before Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. C. Jain on November 5, 1980 for admission on which date he issued a show cause notice. The notices were issued immediately thereafter but it is regrettable that the same were not returned to this court for over 1, 12 years and the office awaited the receipt Of the notices which were presented time and again, it appears from the record that the enquiry officer Shri K. C. Sogani received the notices long back and he sent the served copy of the notice to the Addl. Registrar but none cared to appear before this Court. The parties were deemed to have been served for the purpose of admission by the order, dated July 19, 1983 and the case was listed for admission after the she cause notice as mentioned on July 26, 1983. Registrar but none cared to appear before this Court. The parties were deemed to have been served for the purpose of admission by the order, dated July 19, 1983 and the case was listed for admission after the she cause notice as mentioned on July 26, 1983. On this date after hearing the counsel for the petitioner this writ petition was admitted and fresh notices were issued which were made returnable within 10 weeks. The notices were sent by a registered post by the learned counsel for the petitioner and they were received by the respondents in time as acknowledge me at due receipt were placed on record. The service was found to be complete on October 4, 1983 and since thereafter practically more than 11 months have elapsed but none appeared on behalf of the respondent, as such this writ petition is being disposed of ex parte. 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that findings of the enquiry officer are also absolutely cryptic and the defence of the petitioner has not at all been considered. It has further been contended that the findings are ex facie contrary to the evidence of Jorawar Singh himself who has admitted in his cross examination that the petitioner had problems with the constable regarding issuance of the tickets on the way and prevented him in properly discharging his duties. It has also been contended that there is variance between the statement of Jorawar Singh and the charge-sheet issued. Besides this, neither the name of the witnesses have been mentioned in the way-bill nor they have been mentioned along with the charge-sheet and they have not been examined. The petitioner had to sign the way checking memo under duress and that could not be substituted as a substantive piece of evidence for penalising the petitioner when a protracted enquiry has been contemplated by the Standing Order which actually was started. It has been contended that the petitioner is absolutely ignorant about any of the agreement entered into between the Corporation and the Union under which his appeal has been mechanically rejected. The petitioner, therefore, has been deprived of re-appraisal of the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer as the order of removal itself which has been issued by the Regional Manager, does not disclose his application of the mind independently. 5. The petitioner, therefore, has been deprived of re-appraisal of the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer as the order of removal itself which has been issued by the Regional Manager, does not disclose his application of the mind independently. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments of consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. 6. The report of the enquiry officer, in my opinion, does not disclose that he has applied his mind to the defence of the petitioner at all. He has based his findings on the way-bill Ex. P 1 and had drawn a presumption from the fact that the tickets had not been issued though a distance of 20 km. was travelled beyond Batarda. But the basic question is who states this fact. Neither the witnesses have been examined who were travelling without tickets nor their names have been disclosed nor it has been shown as to which of the six persons the tickets were not issued and who were those seven persons from whom money had been recovered but the tickets had not been issued. That taking of money from the passengers and not accounting for was clearly a case of embazzlement for which a report could also have been lodged but that has not been done. In the charge-sheet Ex. P. 1 it has been stated that Corporation could have been put to a loss of Rs. 42. 95 P which amount would have been utilised by the petitioner. It has not been shown as to how this figure had been arrived at and in respect of what distance. The findings of the enquiry officer about boarding of bus by the passengers 20 km. before the tickets could have been issued is a finding based on no evidence. It was a case of statement against statement. On one side was the statement of Jorawar Singh and as against this was the statement of the petitioner. In such circumstances it was bounden duty of the enquiry officer to have weighed the two statements in true perspective and should have assigned reasons for discarding the one. That not having been done, the report of the enquiry officer cannot be said to be based on correct appraisal of evidence. In such circumstances it was bounden duty of the enquiry officer to have weighed the two statements in true perspective and should have assigned reasons for discarding the one. That not having been done, the report of the enquiry officer cannot be said to be based on correct appraisal of evidence. The disciplinary authority's order neither discloses the reasons for his accepting the report of the enquiry officer nor discloses the application of his mind. The appellate authority rejected the appeal mechanically in pursuance of some agreement between the management and the Labour Union. In these eventualities I am constrained to hold that the petitioner has been deprived of a fair enquiry and proper appraisal of the evidence and the order of removal deserves to be set aside. I have already expressed my regret about the attitude of the Corporation towards notice issued by this Court. 7. In the result, I accept the writ petition and quash the order of removal of Ex. 4, dated 3-12-1984 and direct that the petitioner be reinstated and be given consequential benefits. Since this order is ex part 1 direct the parties to bear their own costs.Petition allowed. *******