JUDGMENT - QAZI M.M., J.:---The respondent No. I was in the employment of the petitioner as a Conductor on 7-9-1977. On that day, he was on duty on the bus as a Conductor on Amaravati-Multai route. The bus was checked near Multai Barrier Naka by the Checking party of the petitioner and it was found that the total number of passengers travelling in the bus were 44, out of whom 22 passengers were without tickets. It was also found that the fare was already recovered by the respondent No. 1 from the passengers but the tickets were not issued to them. The Checking Parties recorded statements of some of the passengers on the spot itself, including the statement of the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 admitted that he had recovered the fare but did not issue tickets. He was accordingly charge-sheeted 14-11-1977. He submitted the reply and thereafter a regular enquiry commenced. On the basis of the material on record a finding was recorded that the respondent No. 1 recovered the fare but did not issue the tickets. Show cause notice was issued informing the respondent No. 1 as to why he should not be dismissed from service. He submitted his reply. The reply was taken into consideration and thereafter the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that in view of the gravity of the charge, the proper punishment was the dismissal of the respondent No. 1 and he was accordingly dismissed vide order dated 3-3-1978. 2. The petitioner thereafter moved the Conciliation Officer for approval under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Conciliation Officer refused to grant approval vide order dated 12-2-1979 for the following reasons: (i) That, without ticket passengers were not examined during the enquiry. (ii) That, the finding was perverse since it is based on the spot statement only. (iii) That, no reasonable person can arrive at those findings on the basis of the evidence recorded in the domestic enquiry i.e. the evidence of the Checking Officer. (iv) That, the post record of the respondent No. 1 was not taken into consideration while inflicting the punishment of dismissal. (v) That, the same authority which issued the charge-sheet also held the enquiry and passed the final order of dismissal and, therefore, the order of dismissal was bad because it suffered from bias. (iv) That, the post record of the respondent No. 1 was not taken into consideration while inflicting the punishment of dismissal. (v) That, the same authority which issued the charge-sheet also held the enquiry and passed the final order of dismissal and, therefore, the order of dismissal was bad because it suffered from bias. It is order which is being challenged in this petition before me. 3. It is now well settled that it is not necessary that the passengers should necessarily be examined during the enquiry, as held by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in 1977 Lab.I.C. 845 (State of Haryana and another v. Rattan Singh)1. Therefore this reason as given by the Conciliation Officer cannot be sustained. Another reason given by the Conciliation Officer is that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse since it is based on the spot statements only. This statement is not even factually correct. During the enquiry two Checking Officers Ithale and Bedarkar were examined whose evidence was taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer while coming to the conclusion that the guilt of the delinquent respondent No. 1 was proved. 4. Another reason given by the Conciliation Officer that the finding of guilt could not be reached on the basis of the evidence of the Checking Officer, cannot be sustained since no reasons are given by the Conciliation Officer as to why he has disbelieved them. Both the witnesses have fully supported the contention of the petitioner that 22 passengers were travelling without tickets and that the fare was already recovered by the respondent No. 1. The jurisdiction of the Conciliation Officer is limited and he was not sitting in appeal over the finding of the Enquiry Officer. This Court in the case reported in 1980 Mh.L.J. 197 (Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. B.H. Satfale)2, has held that there is a very limited scope of scrutiny of departmental enquiry, by the Conciliation Officer. It has further been observed that it is not the function of the Conciliation Officer to judge the sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence before the Enquiry Officer on the basis of which conclusion of guilt or otherwise has been arrived at in a domestic Tribunal. 5. It has further been observed that it is not the function of the Conciliation Officer to judge the sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence before the Enquiry Officer on the basis of which conclusion of guilt or otherwise has been arrived at in a domestic Tribunal. 5. The reason given by the Conciliation Officer for refusing to grant approval is that the Enquiry Officer has not taken into consideration the past service record of the delinquent. This has also no basis. The Competent Authority in its order dated 3-3-1978 has specifically observed as under: "In deciding on this punishment your past service record, the gravity of misconduct in the instant case and all the exenuating and aggravating circumstances and all other factors required to be considered were given due consideration." This would clearly show that the Conciliation Officer did not apply his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and has dealt with it in a most perfunctory manner. 6. Lastly the Conciliation Officer has observed that the authority issuing the charge-sheet was the same which passed the order of dismissal. He has relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in 1978(2) Lab.I.C. page 71 (N.O.C. 115), (Philips India Ltd. v. The Fifth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal and others)3. The Calcutta High Court has observed as follows : "If an officer of the industry concerned who had directly dealt with the charge or guilt complained of, is appointed the Enquiry Officer then there could be no point in holding such an enquiry. If such an enquiry is held by such a person then it would be nothing but a show of enquiry." Though the facts are not given in this decision, but it appears that the observations are in respect of a person who has dealt with the charge or guilt complained of at the stage of investigation. Surely such a person cannot be appointed the Enquiry Officer. Mr. Moharir has invited my attention to the decision reported in 1968 Lab.I.C. 56 (Malayalam Plantation Ltd., Quilon v. Industrial Tribunal, Calicut and another)4. The material portion of para 2 in the said judgment is reproduced below : "The 1st respondent has stated two reasons for refusing the approval sought for. Mr. Moharir has invited my attention to the decision reported in 1968 Lab.I.C. 56 (Malayalam Plantation Ltd., Quilon v. Industrial Tribunal, Calicut and another)4. The material portion of para 2 in the said judgment is reproduced below : "The 1st respondent has stated two reasons for refusing the approval sought for. The first reason is that the 2nd respondent was suspended by the Manager of the estate in which the 2nd respondent was employed, on receipt of a complaint against him without seeking his explanation, and the charge was framed by the Manager himself, and that the enquiry was also conducted by the same Manager. According to the 1st respondent, this amounts to the same person assuming himself the role of the prosecutor and the Judge, and this is a violation of the principles of natural justice. It is a well-established proposition of law, that in domestic enquiries of this kind, the employer is entitled to frame the charge against the employees and also to conduct the enquiry by himself. The enquiry will be in order, unless it is established that the person conducting the enquiry is biassed. There is nothing to show in this case that the Manager, who conducted the enquiry has any reason to be biassed, nor has the 1st respondent referred to any fact or circumstance, from which bias may be inferred." In the instant case, the Enquiry Officer was not in any way connected with the incident dated 7-8-1977 when the bus was checked by the Checking Party. Therefore, the question of any bias does not arise. 7. In this connection Mr. Moharir has invited my attention to the Discipline and Appeal Procedure for the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Employees which fully support his contention. Therefore, the question of any bias does not arise. 7. In this connection Mr. Moharir has invited my attention to the Discipline and Appeal Procedure for the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Employees which fully support his contention. The portion which is material for our purpose is Clause 5(1), which is reproduced below : "(1) The Competent Authority, on the basis of its own findings or on those of the Enquiry Officer, if any is appointed as provided under Clause 18, will pass such orders as he may deem fit provided that before the Competent Authority passes the final order imposing the penalty of dismissal, removal or reduction, the person concerned shall be supplied with a copy of the findings of the Competent Authority or of those of the Enquiry Officer as the case may be, and given a notice to show cause why the penalty should not be imposed." 8. Thus, it is not possible to sustain the impugned order. It is quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed. The Conciliation Officer is directed to grant the necessary approval to the action of the petitioner. Rule is made absolute, but with no order as to costs. Petition allowed. -----