DALVEER BHANDARI ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 4th September, 1976 passed by the Presiding Officer, Additional Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in O. P. N0. 47/75. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under:- The respondent, Mohinder Singh was employed as a Conductor with the Management of the Delhi Transport Corporation on May 18, 1971. He was on duty of Bus no. 332 of Route no. 46. The bus was checked by the Checking Staff of the Management at Sujan Singh Park bus stand. It was found that a group of four passengers had boarded the bus at Inter-State Bus Terminal, its starting point for going to Lodhi Colony, but the respondent Mohinder Singh had not issued them any tickets upto that stage. It is alleged that the respondent admitted his guilt and surrendered four unpunched tickets of 0. 30p. each. His person was searched and a sum of Rs. 2. 06p. were found in excess. The respondent was served with a charge sheet which reads as under:- "that on 18. 5. 1971, you were on duty with bus no. 332 of route no. 46 when it was intercepted by the checking officials at Sujan Singh Park at about 9. 05 hrs. A group of four passengers, Ch. Bakhtawar Singh, (name of the group leader), who boarded your bus at I. S. B. T. (starting point), for Lodhi Colony, was found travelling without having been issued any ticket by you upto S. S. Park, although they had travelled a distance of more than 3 miles. You thus contravened the provisions of paras 21 (ii) and 21 (f) of the Executive Instructions duties of a conductor and para 2 (i) of the Standing Orders governing conduct of D. T. U. employees. " ( 2 ) AN enquiry was held by the Deputy Manager. The respondent admitted the charges levelled against him. In reply to the questions put to the respondent by the Enquiry Officer, the respondent deposed that the admission was voluntary and he did not produce any evidence in defence. In reply to the questions as to why he failed to issue the tickets to the passengers, the respondent explained that it was due to rush of passengers in the bus. In reply to the questions as to why he failed to issue the tickets to the passengers, the respondent explained that it was due to rush of passengers in the bus. It was further explained that two of the passengers were sitting in the front portion and the two in the rear. When asked the passengers sitting in the front portion to purchase the tickets, they replied that the tickets would be purchased by their fellow passengers sitting in the rear, and when he approached the passengers sitting in rear, they stated that the passengers sitting in front would purchase the tickets and as there was great rush, he forgot to issue the tickets. ( 3 ) THE Enquiry Officer submitted his report and recommended removal of the respondent from the service. Thereafter, the respondent was served with a show cause notice as to why he should not be removed from service and ultimately he was removed on 7. 6. 1975 by the General Manager of the DTC. ( 4 ) THE industrial dispute was pending for disposal before the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, the management on the same day filed an application for approval of the action of the management removing the respondent from the service. The respondent resisted the application and pleaded that the application had neither been signed nor filled by the employer and that full one month s wages as required under Section 33 (2) (b) of the I. D. Act, 1947 had not been paid to the respondent. It was also pleaded that Shri Prern Prakash was not duly appointed as Depot Manager and was not competent to hold the enquiry. ( 5 ) IT was also pleaded the enquiry was not conducted according to the principles of natural Justice. The Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the application has been signed and filed by a duly authorised person? 2. Whether Shri Prem Prakash had not been legally appointed as Depot Manager and was, therefore, not competent to hold an enquiry? 3. Whether the domestic enquiry was illegal? 4. Whether one month s wages as envisaged under section 33 (2) (b) had been paid to the respondent ? 5. Whether the finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse? 6. Relief. " ( 6 ) ISSUES nos. 1 to 4 were decided against the respondent. Regarding issue no. 3. Whether the domestic enquiry was illegal? 4. Whether one month s wages as envisaged under section 33 (2) (b) had been paid to the respondent ? 5. Whether the finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse? 6. Relief. " ( 6 ) ISSUES nos. 1 to 4 were decided against the respondent. Regarding issue no. 5, the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal observed that the Standing Orders do not justify dismissal and consequently, the Management was not entitled to the approval of its action primarily on the ground that in the instant case there is no allegation that the total number of passengers in the bus did not exceed 20. The second alternative was, therefore, not applicable. The Tribunal mentioned in the order that for proving misconduct under the first alternative, the management was bound to prove that the bus was proceeding at a scheduled speed of 12 miles per hour and that 15 or more passengers had not boarded the bus at the bus stop where ticketless passengers boarded the same, i. e. I. S. B. T. in the present case. However, there is absolutely no evidence to prove these facts. The Tribunal observed that not to speak of evidence there is no such allegation even either in the challan or in the charge- sheet. Thus, it cannot be said that the respondent had committed any misconduct as defined in para 21 (ii) of the Executive Instructions, and the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the respondent was guilty of misconduct as defined in para 21 (ii) was, therefore, based on no evidence and consequently perverse. The Tribunal also held that the Standing Orders or the Executive Instructions did not justify dismissal of the respondent. ( 7 ) THE real question which arises for determination in this case is whether the respondent had committed breach of Executive Instructions contained in paras 21 (ii) and 21 (f) of the Executive Instructions. The relevant instructions read as under:- "21 (ii ). ( 7 ) THE real question which arises for determination in this case is whether the respondent had committed breach of Executive Instructions contained in paras 21 (ii) and 21 (f) of the Executive Instructions. The relevant instructions read as under:- "21 (ii ). If a conductor fails to issue a ticket to passenger or group of passengers who had travelled a distance of three miles within the city or four miles outside the city limits in a bus at a scheduled speed of 12 or 15 miles per hour respectively of who had travelled a distance of about a mile in a bus in which the total number passengers does not exceed 20 provided that 15 or more passengers do not board the bus at the particular stop at which the ticketless passenger boarded the bus. Non issue of tickets in such cases will be treated as misconduct on the part of the conductor. 21 (f ). At the starting point, a conductor shall start issuing tickets to the passenger as soon as they board the bus. He shall not wait for the bus to start before starting issuing of tickets. " ( 8 ) WHEN the aforesaid Executive Instruction are analysed rationally, then, before the respondent can be found guilty of violating para Section 21 (ii), 21 (f) of the Executive Instructions, it is necessary that there has to be a specific charge containing all the ingredients of the Executive Instructions which according to the petitioner, the respondent had violated, meaning thereby that the respondent failed to issue tickets to passengers who had travelled a distance of three miles within city and. 4 miles outside the city limits in a bus at a scheduled speed of 12 or 15 miles per hour and the the total number of passengers in the bus did not exceed 20, provided that 15 or more passengers did not board at a particular stop at which the ticketless passengers boarded the bus. ( 9 ) THE Tribunal s finding that the Management did not prove that the bus was proceeding at a scheduled speed of 12 or 15 miles per hour and 15 or more passengers had not boarded the bus at the bus stop where the ticketless passengers boarded the same, i. e. I. S. B. T. in the present case. ( 9 ) THE Tribunal s finding that the Management did not prove that the bus was proceeding at a scheduled speed of 12 or 15 miles per hour and 15 or more passengers had not boarded the bus at the bus stop where the ticketless passengers boarded the same, i. e. I. S. B. T. in the present case. The Tribunal held that there is absolutely no evidence to prove these facts. The Tribunal further held that not to speak of evidence, there is no such allegation even either in the challan or the charge sheet. Thus, it cannot be said that the respondent had committed any misconduct as defined in Section 21 (ii) of the Executive Instructions, and therefore, the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the respondent was guilty of misconduct under para 21 (ii )21 (f) was based on no evidence. ( 10 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant judgment cited at the Bar. It is not necessary to refer to the judgment cited at the bar because the controversy in the present case is restricted to the application and interpretation of para 21 (ii) of the of the Executive instructions. When the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is carefully examined, this court does not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal where interference by this court in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is required. ( 11 ) IT may be pertinent to mention that during the pendency of this writ petition, serious efforts were made to amicably settle this matter because of inordinate delay in deciding this matter. The respondent had produced a chart indicating the outstanding amount to which the respondent is entitled to. The D. T. C. s present financial condition was also taken into consideration but the settlement could not be arrived at. ( 12 ) ONE round of litigation has taken more than 26 years because the alleged incident is dated 18. 5. 1971. The respondent who was a youngman at that time is now close to the superannuation. It is difficult to comprehend that if there is another round of litigation, who is going to get the fruits of litigation. While taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances, in my opinion, ends of justice would meet if the petitioner is given another amount of Rs. 75,000. It is difficult to comprehend that if there is another round of litigation, who is going to get the fruits of litigation. While taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances, in my opinion, ends of justice would meet if the petitioner is given another amount of Rs. 75,000. 00 within two months in full and final settlement of his entire claim against the respondent in addition to whatever has already been paid to him under the orders of the court. I order accordingly. ( 13 ) THE writ petition is disposed of in terms of what has been mentioned above No costs.