JUDGMENT Heard learned advocate Mr. Deepak G. Aloria for the petitioner. 2. By way of the present petition, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, through its Divisional Controller, Amreli has sought to challenge judgment and award dated 15th October, 2013 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar in Reference (IT) No. 69 of 2011. By the said judgment and award, the Tribunal has set aside order dated 30.06.2004 passed by the competent authority of the Corporation, imposing penalty of stoppage of five yearly increments with future effect. It then directed that the workman would not be entitled to any monetary benefits which would arise on account of cancellation of penalty order. 3. The respondent workman, who was working as conductor under the petitioner Corporation was served with the charge-sheet dated 8th March, 2004. The charge levelled against him was that when he was on duty as a conductor on 30th September, 2003 in the bus plying from Bhuj to Amreli, upon the bus being checked by the checking squad of the Corporation, it was detected that he had collected Rs. 130/- towards fare from two passengers travelling from Morbi to Amreli, and had issued two tickets for Rs. 50/- bearing Nos. 9167928 and 9167929 which were used tickets reissued. It was further alleged that in similar way, he had collected amount of Rs. 71/- from a passenger travelling from Samkhiyali to Aatkot, but had reissued the used ticket for Rs. 50/- bearing No. 9167925. It appears that after the said incident, the respondent came to be transferred to Una Depot from Amreli depot. A regular departmental inquiry was conducted against the workman in respect of the aforesaid charge of misconduct in which, upon the inquiry officer having found the charges to be proved, imposed penalty of stoppage of five yearly increments with permanent effect. The first departmental appeal preferred by the respondent workman failed, he raised industrial dispute invoking jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal, which culminated into the judgment and award impugned herein. 4. On going through the judgment and award of the Tribunal, it was seen that the Tribunal closely examined the material on the basis of which the inquiry officer had held the charge to be proved and scrutinized the inquiry findings on that basis. The charge related to re-issuance of three tickets of Rs. 50/- each bearing aforementioned numbers. 4. On going through the judgment and award of the Tribunal, it was seen that the Tribunal closely examined the material on the basis of which the inquiry officer had held the charge to be proved and scrutinized the inquiry findings on that basis. The charge related to re-issuance of three tickets of Rs. 50/- each bearing aforementioned numbers. It was noticed by the Tribunal from the material on record that on the day previous to the incident, i.e. on 29th September, 2003, the closing number of block of tickets of Rs. 50/- was 9167915. on the next day, 14 tickets of Rs. 50/- was used in the trip in question. The Tribunal noted that ticket no. 9167925 was issued to a passenger traveling from Bhuj to Maliya, whereas in the charge leveled the said ticket was alleged to have been reused and reissued to a passenger travelling from Samkhiyali to Atkot. The fallacy in what was alleged was explicit in view of the fact that travelling from Bhuj Samkhiyali is the station which falls before Maliya, noted the Tribunal. Similarly, out of the other two tickets claimed to be reissued as per the charge, ticket No. 928 was given to a group of passengers going from Bhuj to Maliya, whereas ticket No. 929 was issued from Gandhidham. All tickets were revered from the passengers, and hence the entire charge about reissuance of the said tickets was baseless, as was rightly observed by the Tribunal. 5. The findings of the inquiry officer was produced at Exh. 25, which bellied the justification because as per the above details noted regarding issuance of tickets and the position of the way-bill obtained, there was no support to the charge from the material on record. The way-bill on the day in question showed that it showed issuance of two tickets bearing Nos. 930 and 931 to the two passengers embanked from Samkhiyali. The very allegation of reuse of tickets as per the charge, was thus without factual foundation. The way-bill was produced at Exh. 17, which indeed stood in conflict with what was stated in charge. The xerox of the tickets were produced at Exh. 23, the numbers on which were not visible and the tickets were misprinted. Considering these factual position, the Tribunal eminently reasoned correct that the inquiry officer could not have concluded that the charge against the workman was proved. 17, which indeed stood in conflict with what was stated in charge. The xerox of the tickets were produced at Exh. 23, the numbers on which were not visible and the tickets were misprinted. Considering these factual position, the Tribunal eminently reasoned correct that the inquiry officer could not have concluded that the charge against the workman was proved. 5.1 All the above was not enough. The reporter who have reported was not examined in the inquiry. It was the duty on part of the Corporation to get the reporter examined. The evidence of reported is always attached value and reliability even if other evidence is weak or absent. However, when the reporter himself gave no evidence and was not examined, there remained no evidence standing to support the charge. In other words, the findings of the inquiry officer that the charge was proved was not based on any legally acceptable evidence. The findings of guilt when not founded on legally tenable evidence, is one based on ‘no evidence’. The case was one of ‘no evidence’. However, neither the findings of the inquiry officer nor the punishment imposed could have been allowed to sustained by the Tribunal. 6. In the above light, when the Tribunal has in its judgment and award set aside the order of penalty, in that it booked no error. 7. The Tribunal while setting aside the penalty did not grant the monetary benefits arising thereby. Taking any view, therefore, and even if the case of the Corporation were to be accepted, non granting of monetary benefits would constitute punishment, and adequate punishment in the facts and circumstances. In any view, the impugned judgment and award warranted no interference by this court. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the powers under section 11A could be said to be properly exercised by the Tribunal. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, the challenge to the impugned judgment and award of the Industrial Tribunal is devoid of merits. 9. The petition fails and it stands dismissed.