Honble VERMA, J.–The petitioner, in the present writ petition, has challenged the order dated 7.5.1983 (Annex.7) passed by the Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jodhpur and the appellate order dated 5.10.1983 (Annex.10) with the prayer that the petitioner be reinstated on the post of Conductor with all consequential benefits from the date of termination till reins- tatement. (2). The petitioner was suspended vide order dated 1.12.1982 (Annex.2) and was charge-sheeted vide order dated 6.1.1983 (Annex.3) on the allegation that he had made changes in the accounts while issuing tickets on Kota-Jodhpur route and caused loss of Rs. 845/- to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (referred to hereinafter as `the Corporation). The charges as levelled against the petitioner were denied by him vide his representation/reply dated 12.1.1983. The petitioner had submitted that as per the practice and the rules, the petitioner handed over the Way Bills with copies of tickets as issued on Kota-Jodhpur route to the checking Clerk and Cashier Accounts Branch. He had further submitted that there was no Coverwriting or misappropriation of any amount as alleged in the chargesheet. He has further submitted that had there been any such overwriting or misappropriation, in that situation, the Checking Party or the Clerk or the Accounts Officer with whom the amount alongwith Way Bill and Tickets are deposited would have taken notice of the matter there and then. He has specifically mentioned that neither there is any overwriting nor misappropriation of Rs. 845/- while submitting the accounts of the tickets sold and incorporated in the Way Bills. Copy of the reply is attached as Annex.4. (3). Not being satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to go into the charges. The petitioner submits that during the course of the enquiry the petitioner had specifically informed the Enquiry Officer that he wanted to produce one Mohd. Ali the Checking Clerk, Jodhpur Depot as a defence witness who was a material witness in the case as he had checked the accounts of the tickets sold and way bills submitted by the petitioner,but the Enquiry Officer did not give any chance to the petitioner to produce this defence witness nor this witness was summoned by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner had submitted an application for summoning Mohd. Ali on 25.4.1983, copy of which is attached as Annex.6. The petitioner had submitted an application for summoning Mohd. Ali on 25.4.1983, copy of which is attached as Annex.6. However, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide Annex.7 as stated above without affording any opportunity of defence to the petitioner to produce this witness. It is alleged that the petitioner had applied for supply of copies of the statements of the witnesses produced by the department before the Enquiry Officer for making an effective representation by way of appeal. He was not provided with any such documents. The petitioner had filed an appeal Annex.9 which was dismissed vide order dated 5.10.1983 (Annex.10). It is further submitted that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were biased for the reason that in the meeting of the Regional Manager held at Jaipur on 3.3.1983, instructions were issued to the Enquiry Officer vide Annex.11 to the effect that any Enquiry Officer of Jodhpur Depot who gives any decision of conducts himself against the interest of the Corporation would not be given any extension or further opportunity of being appointed as Enquiry Officer. It is, therefore, submitted that it was natural for the Enquiry Officer to have given such a finding as to help the department and avoid their removal from the said post and this type of fear created in the mind of the Enquiry Officer during that time, had created a reasonable apprehension to the fact that the Enquiry Officer would not be working independently. It is stated by the petitioner that he had produced certain evidence to the effect that there was no over-writing when the accounts were checked. The other Checking Clerks i.e. Narain Lal and Ramchandra, who had been produced by the petitioner had supported the petitioner. The competent authority had not passed any speaking order and, therefore, the impugned order was invalid. It was further submitted by the petitioner that as a matter of fact there was no evidence at all on the record what to talk of any legal evidence, to prove the charge of over-writing etc. against the petitioner. (4). The respondent No.2 had filed a written-statement. It was admitted in the written-statement that the petitioner had submitted a list of four witnesses to be examined on his behalf in his defence. All these four witnesses were from the depar- tmental employees of the Corporation itself working at Jodhpur. against the petitioner. (4). The respondent No.2 had filed a written-statement. It was admitted in the written-statement that the petitioner had submitted a list of four witnesses to be examined on his behalf in his defence. All these four witnesses were from the depar- tmental employees of the Corporation itself working at Jodhpur. It is submitted that all the four witnesses which included Mohd. Ali also were served for appearing before the Enquiry Officer on 29.4.1983 (date wrongly mentioned, as per the original record the date is 22.4.1983) and on that date the statements of three witnesses were recorded. Mohd. Ali did not appear and, therefore, he could not be produced in his defence. It is stated that the petitioner was directed to produce the said Mohd. Ali on 26.4.1983 at his own responsibility. However, it is admitted that the petitioner in this connection had moved another application dated 25.4.1983 Annex.6, to the effect that Mohd. Ali who had been put under suspension by the Corporation, had gone to Jaipur and has not returned back and, therefore, till next date i.e. 26.4.1983, it shall not be possible for the petitioner to bring Mohd.Ali until and unless he is summoned by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer did not agree to the request of the petitioner and closed the defence evidence on 26.4.1983 itself. In reply to the averment that no enquiry report had been given to the petitioner, it has been stated by the respondent that Mohd.Ramzans case was to be made effective prospectively and not retrospectively and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to any copy of the Enquiry Officers report. However, the copy of the enquiry report has been attached with the written-statement as Annex.R.1. The other grounds of attack have been denied in the written-statement. It is stated that the prosecution had produced three witnesses including Shri Satya Narain Moondra, the then Accountant who had stated that the petitioner had committed serious act of misappropriation by changing the place of original destination for which the tickets were issued and inserting some other place instead thereof, and illegally misappropriated a sum of Rs.845/- by making over-writing in the ticket books. (5). The petitioner had been charge-sheeted vide Annex. (5). The petitioner had been charge-sheeted vide Annex. 3 alongwith state- ment of allegations that on certain dates in the months of August and September, 1982 certain tickets issued by the petitioner had been detected in the office, in relation to the bus conducted by the petitioner, while on duty from Jodhpur to Kota. On this route certain tickets which should have been for the Stations Jetaran to Kota have been shown as Jetaran to Kekri by changing the word `Kota to Kekri. Simila- rly, certain tickets from Bilara to Kota and from Kota to Jetaran etc. had been shown as from and to Kekri i.e. for the destination or starting place of Kota, interpolation has been made by over-writing on it as `Kekri and, thus, a suspicion had been created. Admittedly, the petitioner had denied the allegations. He had specifically mentioned that neither there was any over-writing nor he had changed the word ``Kota to ``Kekri. However, the amount mentioned on the tickets does tally with the amount which is chargeable from Jetaran to Kekri or Bilara to Kekri or whatever place of starting to the place of destination was. There is no dispute so far as the amount of the tickets are concerned. It is admitted fact that there is no change or over-writing on the fare/amount mentioned on the tickets. The suspicion seems to have arisen in the office that it is possible that the petitioner Conductor might have changed the word ``Kota to ``Kekri. The tickets books are issued to the conductor and the conductor issues the tickets to the passengers by writing the amount and place of starting with the place of destination. The carbon copy is handed over to the passenger. The originals are kept by the conductor. Whatever the amount is mentioned in the tickets that amount is shown in the way bills kept by the conductor. The way bills contain the particulars of the tickets sold alongwith their numbers and the amount of fare. The way bill is prepared by the conductor. The ticket books which are also numbered are produced in the office after the journey, which is checked by the checking officials. The amount is tallied and the same is deposited in the office by the concerned officials. The way bill is prepared by the conductor. The ticket books which are also numbered are produced in the office after the journey, which is checked by the checking officials. The amount is tallied and the same is deposited in the office by the concerned officials. There is no dispute whatsoever that whatever amount had been mentioned on the tickets which does not contain any cuttings, the same amount finds depicted in the way bill. Had some carbon copy been produced to compare it with the original then there could have been some evidence to prove the charge and some discrepancy could have come to light. The petitioner had specifically denied the charge of over-writing.The original file was called by me in the Court. I have seen the tickets and the way bills, placed on the enquiry file. It cannot be said, after looking at the tickets, that there is any over-writing. On some of the tickets there is no over writing at all and on other tho- ugh there is some over-writing creating some suspicion against the petitioner when word `Kekri is seen, but suspicion cannot be a substitute of proof. In view of the specific denial by the petitioner, it would have been advisable for the department to get a positive evidence by way of comparison from an expert. None of the witnesses produced by the department is an expert but are only officials working in the office who have deposed that these tickets have been deposited by the conductor in the office alongwith the way bills and there is suspicion that the petitioner might have committed this misconduct. No evidence whatsoever has been produced to prove such forgery and, therefore, it can be safely said that there is no legal evidence on the file to come to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed such misconduct. Only because of the reason that the Enquiry Officer feels that there is suspicion of such a misconduct, it cannot be said that the misconduct stands proved. (6). Apart from the above facts, the non-summoning of defence witness Mohd. Ali by the Enquiry Officer without giving any reason, vitiates the enquiry. It would have been a different matter if the Enquiry Officer had given some reason about the relevancy of the defence witness Mohd.Ali. The proceedings of enquiry had started on 26.3.1983 and had finished on 26.4.1983. (6). Apart from the above facts, the non-summoning of defence witness Mohd. Ali by the Enquiry Officer without giving any reason, vitiates the enquiry. It would have been a different matter if the Enquiry Officer had given some reason about the relevancy of the defence witness Mohd.Ali. The proceedings of enquiry had started on 26.3.1983 and had finished on 26.4.1983. From 26.3.1983 to 4.4.1983 only formal sittings are made by the Enquiry Officer on three dates i.e. 26.3.1983, 30.3.1983 and 4.4.1983. On 4.4.1983 the case was adjourned to 7.4.1983 for recor- ding the prosecution evidence. The statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded on 7.4.1983 and the case was adjourned to 8.4.1983 for the defence evidence. On 8.4.1983 the petitioner had stated that he wanted to produce Narain Lal, Ramchandra, Mohd. Ali and Brij Mohan, the checking clerks and it was ordered by the Enquiry Officer that all the four persons be summoned for 22.4.1983. On the next date of hearing i.e. 22.4.1983 three witnesses were present except Mohd.Ali who had been served by the Enquiry Officer but he could not appear before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer was not prepared to adjourn the case despite the service had been made on Mohd.Ali and despite the fact that after service Mohd. Ali had failed to appear, the petitioner was directed to produce Mohd. Ali on 26.4.1983 i.e. after 3-4 days. On 25.4.1983 the petitioner had moved an application to the Enquiry Officer, attached as Annex.6 to the writ petition, wherein the petitioner had stated that Mohd. Ali an employee of the Corporation had gone to Jaipur but had not been able to come back. He had stated that he was the concer- ned official and, therefore, his statement was necessary in the present case. He had prayed that another summons be issued in his name. From the enquiry file it appears that the Enquiry Officer had only put an endorsement on this application to the fact that ``place it in the file of Shri Manohar Lal where the order is to be passed. The Enquiry Officer has signed on this application on 26.4.1983. On 26.4. From the enquiry file it appears that the Enquiry Officer had only put an endorsement on this application to the fact that ``place it in the file of Shri Manohar Lal where the order is to be passed. The Enquiry Officer has signed on this application on 26.4.1983. On 26.4. 1983 when the case had been put up before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer had closed the evidence stating, therein, that the petitioner had been afforded an opportunity to produce Mohd.Ali and the petitioner had failed to produce him, therefore, no opportunity is to be given to the petitioner. The enquiry was closed. After going through the file of enquiry proceedings it is very clear that the petitioner was asked to produce his defence on 22.4.1983, when he had already given the names of four persons as defence witnesses and on that date three defence witnesses were produced and the case was adjourned to 26.4.1983 and on 26.4.1983 the defence evidence was closed and so was the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer had taken almost one month for production of prosecution witnesses, but had only given three days to the petitioner to produce his entire defence. (7). The counsel for the petitioner submits that the witness Mohd. Ali, being an employee of the Corporation was not under the control of the petitioner and it was not possible for the petitioner to compel Mohd. Ali to appear as his witness. It is further stated by him that the Enquiry Officer had earlier summoned four witne- sses and out of which 3 were already examined on being served by the department. Mohd.Ali who was in Jaipur could not present himself on the date fixed i.e. 26.4.1983 but before that on 25.4.1983 the petitioner himself had moved an application for issuing summons for Mohd. Ali and it was unfair on the part of the Enquiry Officer to have closed his defence evidence on the next date i.e. 26.4.1983. It is sub- mitted that no harm have been caused to the respondents if the case would have been adjourned to another day to enable the petitioner to produce Mohd. Ali in his defence as according to the petitioner, Mohd. Ali was the person who could have thrown light on the facts of the present case better than any other witness. Ali in his defence as according to the petitioner, Mohd. Ali was the person who could have thrown light on the facts of the present case better than any other witness. It is settled law that in the departmental proceedings, after the close of the prosecution evidence, the delinquent official is entitled to produce his defence. In this particular case, admittedly the Enquiry Officer had summoned four defence witnesses for evidence on the first date of defence evidence i.e. on 22.4.1983 and out of these four witnesses 3 had appeared in response to the summons. One witness Mohd. Ali could not appear. The petitioner had immediately moved an application for issu- ance of another set of summons for Mohd. Ali on the ground that Mohd. Ali is an employee of the Corporation and in the circumstances mentioned in the application, Mohd. Ali could not be produced by him. He had further submitted that another chance be given to the petitioner to produce Mohd.Ali for the reason that Mohd. Ali had gone to Jaipur and had not returned back. It was a fit case where the Enquiry officer should have given proper opportunity to the petitioner for producing his defence evidence or should have given reasons for not summoning Mohd.Ali stating whether the production of Mohd. Ali was relevant or not. No such thing had been done by the Enquiry Officer and straight way the defence evidence had been closed. As a matter of fact, the petitioner had been given time of less than one week for producing defence evidence. It cannot be said that the petitioner was in any way prolonging or delaying the enquiry proceedings. The very valuable right of the petitioner to produce his defence evidence of whatever nature, if relevant, had been denied to the petitioner and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner had been afforded a proper opportunity of producing the defence evidence. The impugned enquiry proceedings as well as the impugned orders Annex.7 and 10 are to be quashed on this ground as well as there was no fair inquiry held against the petitioner. The writ petition is to be allowed on the reasons given above and the impugned orders are to be quashed. (8). The impugned enquiry proceedings as well as the impugned orders Annex.7 and 10 are to be quashed on this ground as well as there was no fair inquiry held against the petitioner. The writ petition is to be allowed on the reasons given above and the impugned orders are to be quashed. (8). The counsel for the petitioner has no objection that in case the impugned orders are set aside and the petitioner is reinstated in service within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the petitioner be paid 50% of the wages to which he would have been entitled to. (9). The writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders Annex.7 and 10 are set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits of continuity of service but shall be paid back wages at the rate of 50% only as agreed to by the counsel for the petitioner. The respondents are directed to implement the judgment within three months. (10). The writ petition is allowed as above. No orders as to costs.