Judgment : The State owned Transport Corporation is the appellant. The challenge is to the order of the learned single Judge dated 30.11.2001 passed in W.A. No.12709 of 1994. The respondent preferred the above writ petition challenging the order of the appellant dated 26. 1994, in and by which the appellant ordered for recovery of a sum of Rs.13,400/-in forty-eight installments from the salary payable to the respondent from the month of July 1991. The said sum of Rs.13,400/-was arrived at towards the value of the unused ticket contained in two ticket books issued to the respondent, while he was assigned the duty of Conductor in the appellant Corporation vehicle plying between Madurai and Coimbatore. The brief facts which resulted in the issuance of the above order of punishment dated 26. 1994 was that the respondent was assigned the duty of Conductor on 24. 1992 in the bus running between Madurai and Coimbatore. On that day, when the bus left Palani at 4.30 a.m., he was entrusted with three ticked books. It is stated that while he was in the process of issuing tickets on 24. 1992 in the first trip between Palani and Madurai, he noticed that two unused ticket books kept in his personal bag along with his other wearing apparels and money purse with cash of Rs.120/- were stolen. According to the respondent, he informed the same to Palani Depot through wireless message and that on 24. 1992, he lodged a complaint with Palani Police Station for the above loss of ticket books. The respondent was issued with a charge sheet dated 29. 1992 alleging negligence in performance of his duty. The respondent submitted his explanation. Not satisfied with the explanation, an enquiry was also held. The enquiry officer submitted his report finding the respondent guilty of the charges. Based on the finding of the enquiry officer, the impugned order dated 26. 1994 came to be passed directing recovery of a sum of Rs.13,400/-. Challenging the same, the respondent preferred the above writ petition, which came to be allowed by the learned single Judge. 2. Assailing the order of the learned single Judge Mr. S. Jayaraman, learned counsel for the appellant in his submissions contended that for the loss of unused tickets, a procedure for recovery is prescribed in the proceedings dated 6. Challenging the same, the respondent preferred the above writ petition, which came to be allowed by the learned single Judge. 2. Assailing the order of the learned single Judge Mr. S. Jayaraman, learned counsel for the appellant in his submissions contended that for the loss of unused tickets, a procedure for recovery is prescribed in the proceedings dated 6. 1986, which was subsequently in consultation with the employees union revised by proceedings dated 26. 1991 and 8. 1991 and that the impugned order dated 26. 1994 was issued to the respondent strictly applying the above referred to proceedings and therefore no interference was called for to the impugned order dated 26. 1994. According to the counsel, the subsequent understanding reached with the union in the year 1995 was not applicable to the case on hand as the loss of ticket books was in the year 1992. Learned counsel also contended that the unused ticket books are valuable to the appellant Corporation, since there would be every scope for abusing those ticket books for persons to undertake travel, without paying the necessary value of the tickets. Learned counsel also con-tended that when the ticket books are issued to the Conductors it is as good as such, conductors being entrusted with the cash value of such ticket books and therefore unless a strict vigil and care is taken in the retention of the ticket books by the conductors, the corporation would be put to serious prejudice and monetary loss. According to the learned counsel, in the above said background, the impugned order of punishment dated 26. 1994 is analyzed then no fault can be found with the appellant Corporation. 3. We also heard Mr. D. Hariparanthaman learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel contended that there was no lack of bona fide on the part of the respondent when he lost the ticket books and therefore the order of punishment seeking to recover a sum of Rs.13,400/- from the respondent while put in unblemished record of fourteen years service, caused prejudice to the respondent. D. Hariparanthaman learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel contended that there was no lack of bona fide on the part of the respondent when he lost the ticket books and therefore the order of punishment seeking to recover a sum of Rs.13,400/- from the respondent while put in unblemished record of fourteen years service, caused prejudice to the respondent. According to the learned counsel, respondent was mot negligent as far as the loss of the two ticket books inasmuch as while he was on his job of issuing the tickets, his personal bag in which he kept the two unused ticket books along with the wearing apparel as well as his own cash of Rs.120/-were stolen by some unscrupulous persons and immediately after the same was noticed, it was reported by him through wire-less and after completing his duty, necessary police complaint, was also preferred. It is therefore contended that the respondent took all diligent steps to report about the loss of unused ticket books to the authorities concerned and therefore when there was no deliberate intention on the part of the respondent in the missing of the unused ticket books, the order of the appellant in imposing the punishment of recovery was too harsh and it was uncalled for. It was also pointed out that for keeping the unused ticket books in safe custody, no provision was made in the vehicle and therefore such order of punishment issued to the respondent was liable to be set aside and therefore no interference is called for to the order of the learned single Judge. 4. Having heard the learned counsel we find force in submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent. From the respective submissions made and on a perusal of the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent as well as the counter affidavit filed by the appellant in the writ petition, we find that the respondent cannot be held to have acted in a negligent manner as far as the loss of unused ticket books entrusted with him while he was assigned the duty on 24. 1992. According to the respondent he reported about the loss of the ticket books through wireless to the higher authorities. There was nothing to suggest that no such message was ever sent by the respondent. 1992. According to the respondent he reported about the loss of the ticket books through wireless to the higher authorities. There was nothing to suggest that no such message was ever sent by the respondent. In fact, on his way back in the next trip, he was issued with two new ticket books at Ottanchatram Depot. If really there were no intimation authorities at the Ottanchatram Depot would not have readily come forward to issue the two new ticket books to the respondent. The fact that the respondent made police complaint immediately after the conclusion of duty hours on 24. 1992 also impresses us to hold that the respondent took all diligent steps to duly inform the appellant about the loss of the tickets. In this context, while we peruse the proceedings referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant namely, the proceedings dated 26. 1991 and 8. 1991, we find that the cumulative effect of the proceedings were to ensure that necessary enquiry should be done in case where loss of unused ticket books is reported, either to defraud the appellant Corporation or such reporting discloses that the concerned conductor was diligent in performance of his duty and the loss of ticket books were beyond his control and at the instance of some other extraneous circumstances or by other unscrupulous persons. Therefore, if such was the contemplation of the appellant Corporation, in adopting such a course of holding an enquiry, in respect of the loss of unused ticket books is reported, we are of the view that the very purpose would be defeated if the recovery of the value of unused ticket books is automatically made whenever loss is reported. In fact, subsequently in 1995 Settlement namely Clause 29 of the said Settlement makes it clear that in the event of loss of ticket books is reported by way of complaint to the police and such loss had occurred due to accident, theft or robbery, no recovery should be made from the concerned Conductor. The same point of view was very much existing in the earlier proceedings when the appellant corporation prescribed the procedure of holding an enquiry, wherever loss of ticket books are reported. 5. The same point of view was very much existing in the earlier proceedings when the appellant corporation prescribed the procedure of holding an enquiry, wherever loss of ticket books are reported. 5. Viewing in that respect, we are in full agreement with the conclusion of the learned single Judge as has been set out in paragraph 8 and 9 of the order impugned in this appeal. For all the above stated reasons, we are convinced that the order impugned in this appeal does not call for interference. We therefore do not find any merit in this appeal. 6. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.