JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioner is working as a Senior Assistant at Ukkadam Branch-I,Coimabtore in the respondent Transport Corporation. He has come forward to challenge the order dated 22.08.2009 wherein and by which, he was directed to pay a sum of Rs.18,604.50 towards the loss of ticket bundle collected as on 30.06.2009. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 05.01.2010 and in the interim application, stay of recovery was granted by this Court. 3. On notice from this Court, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit dated 30.03.2010. 4. The facts leading to the order of recovery are as follows: 4.1. The petitioner along with three other Senior Assistants were working in the respondent Corporation and it was stated that while the duty official in-charge of the ticket books and the collection clerk receiving the ticket books from the Head Office, the same has to be taken into stock account properly by entering every details in the computer. The collection clerk has to verify the particulars of the unused tickets received from the conductor and the collection amount on the basis of the details given by the computer operator. After remitting the collection amount and unused ticket books by the conductor, if any discrepancies found during the verification by the Audit Staff, in respect of fresh ticket book or unused ticket books available at branch ticket book section, then the responsibility will be fixed among the ticket book in-charge and collection clerks for the shortage based on the recommendation made by the Branch Manager. 4.2 It was stated that the an audit was conducted in Ukkadam Branch where the petitioner along with three others were working, on 30.06.2009. During the audit and investigation, it was found that the ticket books assigned with TTR (Town Ticket Record) Nos.238 to 262 were not found. Hence, the Branch Manager gave a report stating that the official in-charge for the ticket books of the branch who was transferred to Head Office has not returned the ticket books properly and also recommended to get explanation from him. Hence, the Branch Manager gave a report stating that the official in-charge for the ticket books of the branch who was transferred to Head Office has not returned the ticket books properly and also recommended to get explanation from him. The present four Senior Assistants were also collectively held responsible for the loss and the loss was arrived at on the basis of the face value of the ticket at Rs.93,022.50 and the show cause notice was given to the four Senior Assistants and since no one submitted the explanation, the liability was fixed equally on the five employees. Hence the individual responsibility was arrived at Rs.18,604.50 and the same was directed to be recovered in ten monthly instalments. It was stated that a circular dated 29.07.2009 was issued informing all the employes to hand over the ticket books if anyone traces the same and till the date of counter affidavit, no one has returned the ticket book and hence the Corporation has sustained the loss. 5. There was no illegality in ordering recovery. It is no doubt true that the respondent employer is entitled to conduct investigation for any loss of goods which are expressly entrusted to any of the employee. But, at the same time, the only question was as to how the respondent arrived at the cost of the loss. While the respondent Corporation insisted that the loss should be calculated on the basis of the face value of the ticket books, the workers' contention was that it is only a notional loss and not the actual loss. This Court, in more than one writ petition, filed by the conductor of the very same Corporation has held that collection of the face value of the ticket loss cannot be permitted, if at all the cost of production of the ticket printing alone can be collected, in case there was negligence on the part of the person who is handling the tickets. It is an admitted fact that the Transport Corporation does not found fault with any one of those orders. Therefore, it must be stated that the same principle will apply to the Office staff who were also involved when they entrusted with the ticket books. It is not the case of the respondent corporation that the petitioner along with three others were launching and circulating fake tickets with the help of the conductors. Therefore, it must be stated that the same principle will apply to the Office staff who were also involved when they entrusted with the ticket books. It is not the case of the respondent corporation that the petitioner along with three others were launching and circulating fake tickets with the help of the conductors. If there is no such allegation, then the very entrustment of ticket books will only enable them to collect the cost of production of such ticket books and not the face value of the tickets. 6. This analogy may be arrived at from the provisions of Payment of Wages Act 1931. Section 7(2)(c) of the said Act provides for deductions for loss of goods expressly entrusted to the employed person for custody and in case, such loss is directly attributable to his negligent or default. In this case if the loss of ticket books was expressly entrusted to the petitioner, but what could be recovered is only the loss of manufacturing cost of such ticket and not the face value. 7. Though the respondents have in their counter affidavit attempted to state that the ticket value is almost equal to the cash, such contention cannot be accepted. At the maximum, the tickets can be compared with any Negotiable instrument and therefore recovery can be made only from the actual loss and not from the notional loss. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. However, it is open to the respondents to fix the liability in terms of the manufacturing cost of tickets which is the loss caused by the petitioners due to their neglect or default. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.