Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : Aggrieved by the order of the respondent-management of Rani Mangammal Transport Corporation, dated June 27, 1994, ordering recovery of Rs. 13, 400 from the salary, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the said order. According to the petitioner he was working as a conductor in the Palani depot of the respondent-Corporation. He had put in 14 years of unblemished record of service. He was on duty on April 26, 1992 in a bus running between Madurai and Coimbatore. The bus had shed-out from Palani at 4.30 a.m. At that time, he was entrusted with 3 ticket books. The bus had reached Madurai at about 8 a.m. The bus would have to return back to Palani depot only on the evening at about 6 p.m. on April 27, 1992. Out of the 8 unused ticket books, one was meant for April 26, 1992 and the other was for April 27, 1992 and the third was a spare one. Each ticket book contained 500 leaves. The respondent-Corporation has not made any arrangement for the safe custody of the ticket books. Long route buses continuously operate for 2 days and some times more than 2 days. While he was issuing tickets on April 26, 1992 in the first trip (Palani-Madurai), he found that the two unused ticket books kept in his bag along with his things, namely, lunghie, towel, shirt, shawl and Rs. 120 with purse were stolen. Immediately, he informed the Palani depot through wireless. He got a new ticket book for his duty on April 27, 1992, from Ottanchattram depot. On return to Palani depot after completing his duty on April 27, 1992, he noted the number of the ticket book and thereafter lodged a complaint in the Palani Police Station. While so, the respondent issued a chargesheet, dated September 21, 1992, alleging that he lost two ticket-books and invoice on April 26, 1992 and therefore, he was negligent in his duty. He submitted an explanation explaining the above said facts. Not satisfied with his explanation, an enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer submitted his report holding that he was negligent and based on his report, the respondent passed the impugned order, dated June 27, 1994. There is no evidence to show how the amount of Rs. He submitted an explanation explaining the above said facts. Not satisfied with his explanation, an enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer submitted his report holding that he was negligent and based on his report, the respondent passed the impugned order, dated June 27, 1994. There is no evidence to show how the amount of Rs. 13, 400 was fixed towards the value of ticket books. The impugned order recovering Rs. 13, 400 from his wages in 48 instalments is illegal, unjust and arbitrary and having no other remedy has filed the present writ petition. The respondent-Corporation filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is stated that since the petitioner had not returned the two new unused ticket books which were given to him on April 26, 1992 and the invoice, based on the report of the Junior Superintendent on April 27, 1992, a chargesheet, dated September 21, 1992, was issued to the petitioner charging him with negligence in losing the ticket books belonging to the respondent-Corporation and also causing a loss of Rs. 13, 400 to the Corporation. In the enquiry, the complainant John Manikkaraj was examined and he was also cross-examined by the workman. The workman himself was examined and also there is a loss caused to the respondent Corporation. Accepting the report, the management issued a show-cause notice and after considering his explanation which was not satisfactory, passed the impugned order, dated June 27, 1994, for recovery of the amount of Rs. 13, 400 in 48 equal monthly instalments from the petitioner. So far as computation of the amount of loss is concerned, the same has been done in accordance with the guidelines and the rules prescribed therefor. After considering all the relevant materials, the management took a lenient view and ordered recovery of the loss of Rs. 13, 400 from the petitioner in 48 equal monthly instalments. There is no merit in the writ petition and prayed for dismissal of the same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent. It is true that on April 26, 1992, the petitioner was entrusted with 3 ticket books as well as one invoice. According to the petitioner, while he was issuing tickets on April 26, 1992 in the first trip, that is, from Palani to Madurai, he noticed theft of two unused ticket books along with his personal belongings kept in his bag. According to the petitioner, while he was issuing tickets on April 26, 1992 in the first trip, that is, from Palani to Madurai, he noticed theft of two unused ticket books along with his personal belongings kept in his bag. It is also his definite case that he immediately informed the same to Palani depot through wireless and to complete the journey/trip, he secured a new ticket book from Ottanchattram for his duty on April 27, 1992. It is also stated that after completing his duty and arriving at Palani, he lodged a complaint in the Palani Police Station. A perusal of the records shows that the petitioner after noticing the fact that two unused ticket books kept in his bag along with his personal belongings were stolen away, reported the matter to the Palani depot and also secured new ticket-books from Ottanchattram depot in order to complete the trip on April 27, 1992. The fact that immediately after the said incident he made a report to the higher authority has not been disputed. No doubt, he made a complaint only on April 28, 1992 at Palani Town Police Station, for which he explained that to avoid inconvenience to the travelling public he completed all the trips and at the end of his work and after reaching Palani, he made a complaint to the Palani Police Station as stated earlier, it is clear that immediately, after coming to know that two unused ticket books were stolen, he made a report to his superior and after completing his trips and on reaching Palani, he made a complaint to the police. Though Sri Hariparanthaman, learned counsel for the petitioner, would state that the present action, namely, recovery is contrary to Section 72(c) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, admittedly, in view of the monthly wages which is exceeding Rs. 1, 600 the said provision is not applicable to his case. Likewise, though it is contended that the charge that he had lost two ticket-books and invoice is not a misconduct in terms of the Standing Orders of the respondent-Corporation, Sri Jayaraman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has brought to my notice Certified Standing Orders of Rani Mangammal Corporation, Dindigul, Clause 16(71) which relates to "loss of entrusted used/unused ticket books", is one of the misconducts enumerated therein. Accordingly the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also liable to be rejected. Coming to the finding of the enquiry officer, after analysing the statement of the complainant, namely, John Manikkaraj, Junior Superintendent of the Corporation, as well as the petitioner-conductor, the enquiry officer arrived at a conclusion that his conduct was negligent. It is admitted by the complainant before the enquiry officer that the conductor was entrusted with ticket books for 2 or 3 days and he was asked to do duty with those ticket books. It is also seen that the petitioner was working as a conductor for the past 14 years and was not involved in any such incident. The following discussion of the enquiry officer is relevant : "Vernacular matter omitted" It is also admitted that the management has not provided separate safety box to keep the unused ticket books etc. Admittedly, the enquiry officer has not arrived at the value of Rs. 13, 400. Likewise, though in the second show-cause notice the value of the lost two unused ticket books was mentioned as Rs. 13, 400 the management has not furnished the necessary details as to how the amount was arrived at. As a matter of fact, in the explanation to the show-cause notice, dated December 16, 1993, the petitioner has specifically raised a doubt regarding the calculation of Rs. 13, 400 towards the value of the loss of ticket books. In spite of all those in the impugned order the management has not furnished the details for arriving at the figure of Rs. 13, 400. Though Sri Jayaraman, learned counsel for the respondent, has stated that the amount was calculated as per the Minutes of the meeting of all the Managing Directors held on March 26, 1986, the fact remains that nothing has been shown either in the show-cause notice or in the impugned recovery order. It is also brought to my notice that it was agreed in the Wage Settlement in 1995 that no recovery proceeding shall be initiated against conductors for loss of ticket books due to riot, accident, theft etc. Clause 29 of the 1995 Wage Settlement is extracted hereunder : "Vernacular matter omitted" No doubt, this settlement is with effect from 1995 and in our case, the petitioner conductor had lost the ticket books in 1992. Clause 29 of the 1995 Wage Settlement is extracted hereunder : "Vernacular matter omitted" No doubt, this settlement is with effect from 1995 and in our case, the petitioner conductor had lost the ticket books in 1992. In the light of the above discussion and also considering the difficulties in carrying the ticket books by the conductors coupled with the decision arrived at in the 1995 Settlement that no action would be taken against the conductors for loss of tickets due to riot, accident, theft, etc., I am of the view that the same can be applied to the case of the petitioner. On this ground, the impugned order of the respondent is liable to be set aside. In the light of what is stated above, the impugned order of the respondent, dated June 27, 1994, is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected W.M.P. is closed.