Judgment Harbans Lal, J. 1. This petition has been moved by Baldev Singh under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned award dated 24.3.1987 Annexure P.1. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that on 6.11.1978, when the bus of the petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as the workman) was checked by Inspector Sant Singh, it was discovered that the workman had charged a passenger fare in the sum of Rs. 7.20 without issuing him any ticket. On 1.11.1978, when his bus was checked by Inspector Hans Raj, it was found that he had charged from three passengers fare in the sum of Rs. 3/- without issuing them any tickets. On 4.11.1978, when Mohan Lal, Inspector checked his bus and counted his cash, it was found in excess of Rs. 18/- with no entry in the way bill that he had any personal cash with him. On 15.1.1979, when Inspector Jaskaran Singh checked his bus, he found that he had charged three passengers fare at the rate of Rs. 2.25 per head against tickets, which had already been sold. On 26.12.1978, when his bus was checked by Inspectors, Pritam Singh and Gian Singh, he was found to have charged from four passengers fare at the rate of Rs. 0.80 per head in the sum of Rs. 3.20 without issuing them any tickets. He was charge-sheeted. During the inquiry, he was found guilty. He was served with a show cause notice. Ultimately, his services were terminated with effect from 30.6.1980. He raised an industrial dispute. The matter was referred to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda. After hearing the representatives and examining the evidence on record, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court passed the impugned award Feeling aggrieved therewith, the workman has preferred this petition. 3. In the written statement, General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Muktsar- respondent has inter-alia pleaded that the reports of checking staff cannot be disbelieved as they are responsible officers deputed for the same purpose. The petitioner did not show any prejudice alleged to be caused by the violation of Rule 8.11 of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970 (for short, the Civil Service Rules). Traversing other allegations in the petition, it has been prayed that this petition may be dismissed. 4. The petitioner did not show any prejudice alleged to be caused by the violation of Rule 8.11 of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970 (for short, the Civil Service Rules). Traversing other allegations in the petition, it has been prayed that this petition may be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the findings returned by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court with due care and circumspection. 5. Mr. J.C. Verma, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner strenuously urged that as is borne out from the record, the provisions of Rule 8.11 ibid have been given a go by as the assistance of a co-workman was not provided to the petitioner, who being a semi literate person did require the same and thus, he has been abundantly prejudiced in his valuable right as he could not put forth his case in a desired manner. To buttress this stance, he has sought to place reliance upon the observations made in re: Bhagat Ram vs. State of H.P, andothers, AIR 1983 Supreme Court 454. 6. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to this submission. The allegations against the petitioner were that he had misappropriated the fare charges by not issuing the tickets. To my mind, it did not involve decision of a complex or a intricate question of law. The petitioner could defend himself even without the assistance of a co-worker. He did not make any complaint. A glance through the petition or the impugned award would reveal that it is not his case that he had made a request to the Inquiry Officer to provide the assistance of a co-worker or a lawyer and the same was declined. So, it has to be presumed that he did not make any such request. Had he made such a request and the same had been declined by the Inquiry Officer, he would have made complaint against the denial of assistance of a co-worker or a lawyer. Thus, non-providing of such assistance does not have the effect of vitiating the inquiry. If the need be; the reference may be made to Ram Singh vs. The State of Punjab and another, 1998(2) Recent Services Judgments 518 (DB). Thus, non-providing of such assistance does not have the effect of vitiating the inquiry. If the need be; the reference may be made to Ram Singh vs. The State of Punjab and another, 1998(2) Recent Services Judgments 518 (DB). In such a situation, it is to be noticed as to whether the delinquent official due to non-providing of the assistance of a co-worker has suffered any prejudice or was at disadvantage as compared to the disciplinary authority represented by the Presenting Officer. If the answer to the question is in the affirmative, then the inquiry would be vitiated, but if the answer is in the negative, then the inquiry proceedings would not be vitiated. This would vary from case to case. The delinquent official can assail the inquiry proceedings, if he could establish prejudice to himself in the course of any inquiry proceedings. He has to establish that he was put to a disadvantage as he did not have the assistance of a co-worker during the course of inquiry because he could not cross-examine the departmental witnesses being not well equipped for it and that despite request he was not given the assistance of a next friend. 7. Coming to the instant case, the statement of Hans Raj, Inspector, Annexure P.2 would reveal that he was adequately cross-examined by the workman. The workman did not disclose either before the Labour Court or in this petition as to how he has been prejudiced for not being provided the assistance of the co-worker. In re: Bhagat Ram (supra), too, the Apex Court has observed as under :- "But if the delinquent officer is not informed of his right and an overall view of the joint inquiry of the delinquent and his Superior Officer shows that the delinquent Government servant was at a comparative disadvantage compared to the disciplinary authority represented by the Presiding Officer and a superior officer, co-delinquent, is also represented by an officer of his choice to defend him, the absence of anyone to assist such a Government servant belonging to the lower echelons of service would unless it is shown that he had not suffered any prejudice, vitiate the inquiry." 8. It can be culled out from the above language that if it is shown that the workman had not suffered any prejudice due to non-providing of co-workers assistance, the inquiry will not vitiate. It can be culled out from the above language that if it is shown that the workman had not suffered any prejudice due to non-providing of co-workers assistance, the inquiry will not vitiate. In the instant case, the effective cross- examination of witnesses by the workman tends to show that he has not been prejudiced, in re: Kirpat Singh vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T, Chandigarh and another, 1993(3) Recent Services Judgments 338, it has been held as under :- "It is one thing to say that the assistance of a co-workman was denied and altogether different thing to say that the co-workman be called and the enquiry may be ensued onty thereafter. Further, this point was not raised before the Labour Court, While dealing with issue No. 1 which is with regard to enquiry being proper or vitiated for some reason, it has been held that the workman in fact in his statement did not make any grievance with regard to the conduct of enquiry nor did he say anything which could possibly suggest that he was not allowed fair and reasonable opportunity either to cross-examine the witnesses who appeared against him or in leading defence to prove his own case. If this point was taken in the pleadings, before the Labour Court and evidence was led, it was possible for the management to rebut the same and prove that in fact assistance of a co-workman was never denied to the petitioner and that the presence of the co-workman was not to be secured by it. In view of the fact that this matter was not agitated before the Labour Court and in fact, no question whatsoever, was raised against the conduct of the enquiry, it shall not be just and equitable at this stage to go into this point and set aside the order of dismissal of petitioner from service." 9. In re: R. C. Sharma vs. Union of India and others, 1976(2) Services Law Reporter 265, it has been held as under :- "The question whether the appellant was given a reasonable opportunity to lead evidence and to be heard or not is largely a question of fact. It is only when an opportunity denied is of such a nature that the denial contravenes a mandatory provision of law or a rule of natural justice that it could vitiate the whole departmental trial. It is only when an opportunity denied is of such a nature that the denial contravenes a mandatory provision of law or a rule of natural justice that it could vitiate the whole departmental trial. Prejudice to the government servant resulting from an alleged violation of a rule must be proved." In view of the afore-quoted law as well as discussion, the argument raised by Mr. Verma has no legs to stand upon and is jettisoned. 10 It is further argued on behalf of the petitioner that at the time of checking, no cash was checked nor the petitioner was confronted with the statements of the passengers at the time of checking and thus, the guidelines issued by the Director, State Transport to be observed by the checking staff had not been complied with at all and had the same been done and the statements by the passengers recorded, the things would have been otherwise. 11. To tide over the submission, the learned Assisstant Advocate General, Punjab by relying upon the observations rendered in re: State of Punjab and others vs. Nirmal Singh, 1987 Punjab Acts and Precedents 24, maintained that the law does not envisage that the cash should have been checked or the petitioner was required to be confronted with the statements. As regards, the stated guidelines, the same do not carry the force of law 12. I have well considered the rival contentions. I n Nirmal Singhs case (supra), it has been observed as under :- "Counsel for the respondent, however, sought to rely upon the recent judgment of this Court in State of Haryana vs. Mohan Singh, 1985(2) SLR 116. This was no doubt a similar case, where the services of the conductor had been terminated on the charge that he had taken fare from passengers without issuing them tickets, but a reading thereof would show that the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Rattan Singhs case (supra) had not been noticed and further the case was decided on its own facts, inasmuch as it was found that the Inspector who had detected the non-issue of tickets, had not checked the cash of the conductor, nor had he recorded the statement of any passengers or other persons. It was on this account held to be a case of no evidence. It was on this account held to be a case of no evidence. This thus affords no assistance to the respondent." In re : State of Haryana vs. Rattan Singh, 1977 Punjab Law Reporter 492, the Apex Court ruled as under :- "Held, that it is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and administrative tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Sufficiency of evidence, in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in support of a finding is certainly available for the court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record. It cannot hold that merely because statements of passengers were not recorded the order that followed was invalid. Likewise, the re- evaluation of the evidence on the strength of co- conductors testimony is a matter not for the court but for the administrative tribunal." 13. In view of the above observations, the re-evaluation of the evidence is not required to be done by this Court as it is the function of the Labour Court. As regards the stated departmental instructions, these are of prudence and not the rules that bind or vitiate any violation. Thus, this contention being bereft of any merit is turned down. 14. It is further pressed into service on behalf of the petitioner that it was imperative upon the checking staff to record the statements of the passengers/ witnesses and the failure to do so, amounts to a case of no evidence. This contention pales into insignificance in view of afore-extracted observations from Rattan Singhs case (supra). 15. Last of all, it has been argued that the Labour Court has not apportioned any reason as to why the relief could not be given under the provisions of Section- 11 -A of the Act. I regret my inability to be one with Mr. This contention pales into insignificance in view of afore-extracted observations from Rattan Singhs case (supra). 15. Last of all, it has been argued that the Labour Court has not apportioned any reason as to why the relief could not be given under the provisions of Section- 11 -A of the Act. I regret my inability to be one with Mr. Verma for the reason that on different occasions when the bus being conducted by the petitioner was checked by the inspecting staff, he was found to have collected the bus fare without issuing the requisite tickets to the passengers. The charges were supported by the Inspector concerned. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court is not obligated to invoke the provisions of Section 11-A ibid in every case. In re : Harjinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1999(1) Labour Law Journal 1292, this Court has observed as under :- "It is true that under Section 11-A, the Labour Court has the power to reappraise the evidence. It is also true that the writ Court is normally reluctant to interfere with the findings recorded by the Labour Court. Yet, the power given to the Labour Court cannot be arbitrarily used to order reinstatement or re-employment of dishonest employee. Fraud of even a small amount is like a drop of poison in a bucket of pure milk. It ruins the milk completely and renders it unfit for human consumption. Similarly, an employee found to be guilty of a dishonest act renders himself unfit for retention in service." 16 In view of the above observations, the Labour Court has the power to reevaluate the evidence. The power vested in the Labour Court under Section 11 -A ibid cannot be arbitrarily or whimsically used to order reinstatement or re- employment of dishonest employee. 17. In re: North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. H.H. Pujar, 2008(5) Services Law Reporter 513, the respondent-workman had not issued tickets to 20 out of 136 passengers. During domestic inquiry he was found guilty. Consequently, he was dismissed from service. The order of dismissal passed by the Corporation was upheld by the Apex Court. In re : Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh vs. Krishnan Behari, 1996(2) SCT 508, the respondent was dismissed from service on the charges of misappropriation of public money. During domestic inquiry he was found guilty. Consequently, he was dismissed from service. The order of dismissal passed by the Corporation was upheld by the Apex Court. In re : Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh vs. Krishnan Behari, 1996(2) SCT 508, the respondent was dismissed from service on the charges of misappropriation of public money. The Apex Court held that "any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public interest The amount misappropriated may be small or large, it is the act of misappropriation which is relevant" The order of the Director Local Bodies reducing the punishment of dismissal into stoppage of increments was set aside. 18. Adverting to the facts of the case in hand, the disciplinary authority after analysing the evidence on record found that the petitioner is guilty in this case. The Labour Court also after hearing the representatives of both the parties and evaluating the evidence on record agreed with the findings, of the disciplinary authority. Therefore, this Court by sitting under writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot go into the sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence before the Inquiry Officer and come to a different finding after re-appreciating the evidence on record. Sequelly, this petition is dismissed.